|
Showing 1 - 14 of
14 matches in All Departments
As estimates for the amount of U.S. natural gas resources have
grown, so have the prospects of rising U.S. natural gas exports.
The United States is expected to go from a net importer of natural
gas to a net exporter by 2020. Projects to export liquefied natural
gas (LNG) by tanker ship have been proposed-cumulatively accounting
for about 12.5% of current U.S. natural gas production-and are at
varying stages of regulatory approval. Projects require federal
approval under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b),
with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission being the lead authorizing
agencies. Pipeline exports, which accounted for 94% of all exports
of U.S. produced natural gas in 2010, are also likely to rise. What
effect exporting natural gas will have on U.S. prices is the
central question in the debate over whether to export. A
significant rise in U.S. natural gas exports would likely put
upwards pressure on domestic prices, but the magnitude of any rise
is currently unclear. There are numerous factors that will affect
prices: export volumes, economic growth, differences in local
markets, and government regulations, among others. With today's
natural gas prices relatively low compared to global prices and
historically low for the United States, producers are looking for
new markets for their natural gas. Producers contend that increased
exports will not raise prices significantly as there is ample
supply to meet domestic demand, and there will be the added
benefits of increased revenues, trade, and jobs, and less flaring.
Consumers of natural gas, who are being helped by the low prices,
fear prices will rise if natural gas is exported. Electric power
generation represents potentially the greatest increase in natural
gas consumption in the U.S. economy, primarily for environmental
reasons. Natural gas emits much less carbon dioxide and other
pollutants than coal when combusted. Other types of consumption are
not likely to increase natural gas demand domestically for a long
time. Use in the transportation sector to displace oil is likely to
be small because expensive new infrastructure and technologies
would be required. There is discussion of a possible revival of the
U.S. petrochemicals sector, but the potential extent of a change is
unclear. Getting natural gas to markets where it can be consumed,
whether domestically or internationally, may be the industry's
biggest challenge. Infrastructure constraints, environmental
regulations, and other factors will influence how the market
adjusts to balance supply and demand. Environmental groups are
split regarding natural gas use, with some favoring increased use
to curb emissions of certain pollutants, while others oppose
expanded use of natural gas because it is not as clean as renewable
forms of energy, such as wind or solar. The use of hydraulic
fracturing to produce shale gas has also raised concerns among
environmental groups particularly concerned with its possible
impacts on water quality. The possibility of a significant increase
in U.S. natural gas exports will factor into ongoing debates on the
economy, energy independence, climate change, and energy security.
As the proposed projects continue to develop, policymakers are
likely to receive more inquiries about these projects. Proposals to
expedite and expand LNG exports have already been raised in the
113th Congress, including in S. 192 and H.R. 580. Two other bills,
H.R. 1189 and H.R. 1191, would reform the DOE's process for
determining the public interest regarding LNG exports and prohibit
exports of natural gas produced on federal lands.
In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application
with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL
pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region
of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone
XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels
per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and
further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline
spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North
Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. As a facility connecting
the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a
Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a
permit application, after consultation with other relevant federal
agencies and public input, the department must determine whether a
proposal is in the "national interest." This determination
considers the project's potential effects on the environment,
economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the State
Department considered potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Keystone XL project in a final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) issued on August 26, 2011. A wide range of public
...
Nearly half a million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline
crisscross the United States. The nation's pipeline industry has
made substantial investments to protect these systems and respond
to the possibility of terror attacks. However, U.S. pipelines are
inherently vulnerable because of their number and dispersion. Due
to the essential role pipelines play in our economy, Congress is
examining the adequacy of federal pipeline security efforts.
Congress is examining potential approaches to reducing manmade
contributions to global warming from U.S. sources. One approach is
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - capturing CO2 at its
source (e.g., a power plant) and storing it indefinitely (e.g.,
underground) to avoid its release to the atmosphere. A common
requirement among the various techniques for CCS is a dedicated
pipeline network for transporting CO2 from capture sites to storage
sites.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel shipped in large
tankers to U.S. ports from overseas. While LNG has historically
made up a small part of U.S. natural gas supplies, rising price
volatility, and the possibility of domestic shortages have
significantly increased LNG demand. To meet this demand, energy
companies have proposed new LNG import terminals throughout the
coastal United States. Many of these terminals would be built
onshore near populated areas.
If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil
(e.g., synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen) derived from oil
sands in Alberta, Canada to destinations in the United States.
Because the pipeline crosses an international border, it requires a
Presidential Permit that is issued by the Department of State
(DOS). The permit decision rests on a "national interest"
determination, a term not defined in the authorizing Executive
Orders. DOS states that it has "significant discretion" in the
factors it examines in this determination. Key events related to
the Presidential Permit include: September 19, 2008: TransCanada
submitted an application for a Presidential Permit for its Keystone
XL pipeline. November 10, 2011: DOS announced it needed additional
information concerning alternative pipeline routes through the
Nebraska Sandhills. January 18, 2012: In response to a legislative
mandate in P.L. 112-78, DOS, with the President's consent,
announced its denial of the Keystone XL permit. May 4, 2012:
TransCanada submitted a revised permit application to DOS. Although
some groups have opposed previous oil pipeline permits, opposition
to the Keystone XL proposal has generated substantially more
interest among environmental stakeholders. Pipeline opponents are
not a monolithic group: some raise concerns about potential local
impacts, such as oil spills or extraction impacts in Canada; some
argue the pipeline would have national energy and climate change
policy implications. A number of key studies indicate that oil
sands crude has a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity
than many other forms of crude oil. The primary reason for the
higher intensity: oil sands are heavy oils with a high viscosity,
requiring more energy- and resource intensive activities to
extract. However, analytical results vary due to different modeling
assumptions. Moreover, industry stakeholders point out that many
analyses indicate that GHG emissions from oil sands crude oil are
comparable to other heavy crudes, some of which are produced and/or
consumed in the United States. Because of oil sands' increased
emissions intensity, further oil sands development runs counter to
some stakeholders' energy and climate change policy objectives.
These objectives may vary based on differing views concerning the
severity of climate change risk and/or the need for significant
mitigation efforts. Opponents worry that oil sands crude oil will
account for a greater percentage of U.S. oil consumption over time,
making GHG emissions reduction more difficult. On the other hand,
neither issuance of a Presidential Permit nor increased oil sands
development would preclude the implementation of energy/climate
policies that would support less carbon intensive fuels or energy
efficiency improvements. A primary local/regional environmental
concern of any oil pipeline is the risk of a spill. Environmental
groups have argued that both the pipeline's operating parameters
and the material being transported imposes an increased risk of
spill. Industry stakeholders have been critical of these
assertions. To examine the concerns, Congress included provisions
in P.L. 112-90 requiring a review of current oil pipeline
regulations and a risk analysis of oil sands crude. Opponents of
the Keystone XL pipeline and oil sands development often highlight
the environmental impacts that pertain to the region in which the
oil sands resources are extracted. Potential impacts include, among
others, land disturbance and water resource issues. In general,
these local/regional impacts from Canadian oil sands development
may not directly affect public health or the environment in the
United States. Within the context of a Presidential Permit, the
mechanism to consider local Canadian impacts is unclear.
In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application
with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL
pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region
of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone
XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels
per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and
further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline
spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North
Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. As a facility connecting
the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a
Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a
permit application, the department must determine whether it is in
the "national interest," considering the project's potential
effects on the environment, economy, energy security, foreign
policy, and other factors. Environmental impacts are considered
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and documented
by the State Department in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The final EIS was released for the Keystone XL pipeline permit
application in August 2011, after which a 90- day public review
period began to make the national interest determination. During
that time the State Department determined that more information was
needed to consider an alternative pipeline route avoiding the
environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, an
extensive sand dune formation with highly porous soil and a shallow
depth to groundwater recharging the Ogallala aquifer.
Energy storage technology has great potential to improve electric
power grids, to enable growth in renewable electricity generation,
and to provide alternatives to oil-derived fuels in the nation's
transportation sector. In the electric power system, the promise of
this technology lies in its potential to increase grid efficiency
and reliability-optimizing power flows and supporting variable
power supplies from wind and solar generation. In transportation,
vehicles powered by batteries or other electric technologies have
the potential to displace vehicles burning gasoline and diesel
fuel, reducing associated emissions and demand for oil. Federal
policy makers have become increasingly interested in promoting
energy storage technology as a key enabler of broad electric power
and transportation sector objectives. The Storage Technology for
Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2011 (S. 1845), introduced on
November 10, 2011, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
Order 755, Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized
Wholesale Power Markets, are just two recent initiatives intended
to promote energy storage deployment in the United States. Numerous
private companies and national laboratories, many with federal
support, are engaged in storage research and development efforts
across a very wide range of technologies and applications. This
report attempts to summarize the current state of knowledge
regarding energy storage technologies for both electric power grid
and electric vehicle applications. It is intended to serve as a
reference for policymakers interested in understanding the range of
technologies and applications associated with energy storage,
comparing them, when possible, in a structured way to highlight key
characteristics relevant to widespread use. While the emphasis is
on technology (including key performance metrics such as cost and
efficiency), this report also addresses the significant policy,
market, and other non-technical factors that may impede storage
adoption. It considers eight major categories of storage
technology: pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries, capacitors,
superconducting magnetic energy storage, flywheels, thermal
storage, and hydrogen. Energy storage technologies for electric
applications have achieved various levels of technical and economic
maturity in the marketplace. For grid storage, challenges include
roundtrip efficiencies that range from under 30% to over 90%.
Efficiency losses represent a tradeoff between the increased cost
of electricity cycled through storage, and the increased value of
greater dispatchability and other services to the grid. The capital
cost of many grid storage technologies is also very high relative
to conventional alternatives, such as gas-fired power plants, which
can be constructed quickly and are perceived as a low risk
investment by both regulated utilities and independent power
producers. The existing market structures in the electric sector
also may undervalue the many services that electricity storage can
provide. For transportation storage, the current primary challenges
are the limited availability and high costs of both
battery-electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Additional
challenges are new infrastructure requirements, particularly for
hydrogen, which requires new distribution and fueling
infrastructure, while battery electric vehicles are limited by
range and charging times, especially when compared to conventional
gasoline vehicles. Substantial research and development activities
are underway in the United States and elsewhere to improve the
economic and technical performance of electricity storage options.
Changes to market structures and policies may also be critical
components of achieving competitiveness for electricity storage
devices. Removing non-technical barriers may be as important as
technology improvements in increasing adoption of energy storage to
improve grid and vehicle performance.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports to the United States are
increasing to supplement domestic gas production. Recent actions by
Congress and federal agencies have promoted greater LNG supplies by
changing regulations, clarifying siting authorities, and
streamlining the approval process for LNG import terminals. Were
these policies to continue and gas demand to grow, LNG might
account for as much as 21% of U.S. gas supply by 2025, up from 3%
in 2005. Congress is examining the infrastructure and market
implications of greater U.S. LNG demand.
Critical infrastructure consists of systems and assets so vital to
the United States that their incapacity would harm the nation's
physical security, economic security, or public health. Critical
infrastructure is often geographically concentrated, so it may be
distinctly vulnerable to events like natural disasters, epidemics,
and certain kinds of terrorist attacks. Disruption of concentrated
infrastructure could have greatly disproportionate effects, with
costs potentially running into billions of dollars and spreading
far beyond the immediate area of disturbance. Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita demonstrated this kind of geographic vulnerability by
disrupting a substantial part of the U.S. energy and chemical
sectors in 2005. Congress has been examining federal policies
related to the geographic concentration and vulnerability of
critical infrastructure. In the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) facilitated the construction of new
liquefied natural gas import terminals in diverse ports. Provisions
in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-468)
require studies to identify geographic areas in the United States
where unplanned loss of oil pipeline facilities may cause oil
shortages or price disruptions. The 110th Congress is overseeing
implementation of these measures and considering additional
policies to address concerns about infrastructure concentration.
Geographic concentrations of U.S. critical infrastructure typically
have developed through some combination of market influences
including resource location, agglomeration economies, scale
economies, community preferences, and capital efficiency. Congress
and federal agencies also have adopted policies affecting the
capacity and location of critical infrastructure, including
prescriptive siting, economic incentives, environmental regulation,
and economic regulation.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Personal Shopper
Kristen Stewart, Nora von Waldstätten, …
DVD
R86
Discovery Miles 860
|