GEOTHERMAL ENERGY! (the Dutch situation)

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY!

(the Dutch situation)

 

Wednesday 26-6 I attended a hearing / roundtable conference (Read REPORT)  on geothermal energy (or aardwarmte in Dutch), organized for members of the Dutch Lower House (2e kamer) Specialists from "the field" came to share experiences, insights and techniques and there was a shared &  very positive outlook on the future

Although you might be tempted to equate geothermal energy mainly with countries such as Iceland, Philippines, Kenya etc. with much volcanic activity, in Netherlands - surprisingly – there is ahigh potential for geothermal energy. In theory &  in the long term the total Dutch energy needs might be covered! Whether that is practical and affordable, remains to be seen. 

Geothermal energy: for starters one must immediately distinguish between (relatively) low caloric (or temperature) heat and high caloric heat. The latter is primarily utilized for generation of electricity. There is - in the Netherlands - no experience with that as yet because it requires very deep and therefore very costly drilling. (TransMark does have one concession ("Friesland", including tip Noordoostpolder) for ultra-deep geothermal well exploration. During this session that was not specifically addressed.)

The literature indicates that for electricity (present-day technology!) that wells be drilled into "Hot Dry Rock" and that under favourable conditions where > 220 ° C temperature steam is obtained, pumps would not be necessary and electricity with good efficiency is generated. But in the Netherlands you may have to drill 6 or 7 KM deep for that. Exorbitantly expensive, now ... 

As the name suggests, HDR, this is dry strata in which the transmission of heat is directly from stone on transmission fluid. That is an important difference with geothermal low caloric energy.  Then one specifically drills into porous strata which are hydrous, and are located less deep plus – advantageous for wide public acceptance - they are porous layers so no "Fracking" is needed! HDR may require "fracking" but in many cases only high pressure water injection is sufficient. 

Just a note: Because the drilling for geothermal aims for  water bearing strata (or  HDR) there is little or no chance for leakage of Methane, unlike with  drilling for shale gas. Since Methane in the first 20 years as much as 75 to 100 times more potent greenhouse gas as CO ² that is hugely important! 

Another important aspect that was mentioned: the Netherlands has  a lead over other countries... since the 60s, in the Netherlands (for about 50 billion (guilders probably?)) drilling and seismic testing has yielded an almost complete and very detailed image of the subsurface top 2 KM ... AND that information is public domain, allowing everyone to use it improve one’s chances for success, without any need for costly tests. A national heritage, so to speak. Drill much deeper than that however and the "image" is less detailed, increasing the risk of a "Miss", so right now the deeper you drill the bigger the cost, uncertainty and risk.

The speakers were quite unanimous: we can (and should) use "low-caloric" geothermal energy. Low caloric – less than 100°C - geothermal energy is perfect for heating, sometimes for business - think of drying things for example - and in terms of energy about 40% of the total primary energy use for the Netherlands is heat! Some 55% of that heat demand is low caloric. By 2020 50% of that heat demand could be geothermal energy. Best start sustainable heating at malls, large office buildings, (tropical-) swimming pools, greenhouses, factories, hospitals and retirement homes ... In short, the biggest heat "consumers”. 

Are water bearing Unlike natural gas, oil, shale gas, coal gas, etc. layers with a suitable temperature below the Netherlands for, see this map with temperatures on 2 KM depth! A geothermal resource well drilling is much cheaper than shale gas: different techniques! 

(map) Temperature at 2000 meters depth © TNO NITG

In the recent past there was speculation among politicians in Holland on the possible combining shale gas wells with geothermal as a bonus once the field are empty. Looking at the major differences in technique as well as the targeted strata in both cases, that’s obviously not viable!

In my view this also means that the idea to exploit a failed shale gas well drilling for geothermal energy instead will not work most of the time because of technical problems. So "pot luck" shale gas drilling thinking it will otherwise be used for geothermal company is NOT a good idea.

Technically it is possible to use geothermal energy from about 60 ° (!) C already to generate electricity  in so-called Binary Cycle power plants. However, they have a low efficiency: about 15% or so and generate 1 MW or less it seems. Good for “individual “ use, buildings etc, but not for the national power grid.

The efficiency for electricity generation from (ultra-)deep wells is currently between 20% and 25% (of the thermal power of the well), because in most every case one has to pump water in and out of the well.

New developments in drilling & well casings will be game changers for geothermal electricity so they need constant monitoring on the status of developments. 

Geothermal energy is, once the well is drilled and the technical installation is in situ there are virtually no operating costs! Depending on usage, a thermal well might eventually be exhausted but if it is economical to pause production, the well will "regenerate".

================================

The near future?!!

This all is still based on drilling techniques that have essentially been in use since the mid 1800’s! But there are revolutionary innovations being developed, they right around the as it were, that will make deep or ultra-deep drilling much cheaper and in double-quick time! Actually; we’re going to need new definitions what deep or ultra-deep is… J

Technically: * laser drilling * and “composite” pipe & casing. Boreholes from 75,000 to 100 THOUSAND foot are already being talked about .. 

This will be HUGELY significant! Most thermal power plants generate electricity by burning fossil fuel, often coal! It will be relatively easy and very cost-effective to replace the boiler part and use geothermal steam instead! Existing plants, already hooked up to the power grid must be quickly made emission-free, starting with the coal-fired ones!

Drilling tunnels will be MUCH faster, cheaper, could be longer… storing nuclear waste at 60 thousand feet or deeper… much will change.

16-10-2014

The Electoral College & it's future.

 The Electoral College

& it's future.

The numbers are still growing, both here at the petition site *and* as far as the Popular vote in the USA is concerned. Speculation is that Clinton may possibly even end up with a 2% lead there (3 million??) and that really would be a big deal!

I became curious - yeah, I should have been so before now - about the origins and true intentions of the Founding Fathers in creating the Electoral College: fascinating stuff!

There is a long explanation @ http://atlantablackstar.com/…/electoral-college-origins-sl…/ which tells us it was designed to "level the playing field" between North & South, to protect the (Southern) States with (relatively few) White Slave-owners.

</Quote>: Virginian James Madison responded: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” Madison meant that the North would overrun the South in the electoral process. As a result, the convention allowed Southern states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population to determine the representation of each state in Congress </end quote>

A very different explanation, and popular these days for obvious reasons, is that it was designed as a safeguard against "unfit" candidates! See @ http://www.snopes.com/…/the-electoral-college-and-the-popu…/
 
</Quote>: For example, James Madison, writing in 1787, argued against direct democracy, saying that it created a perfect breeding ground for tyranny:

"" From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. 

( As if he had a Cristal Ball, or time travel.... )

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. </end quote>


Yes, the two entirely different reasons were *both* espoused by James Madison! And an effective politician he was; he got what he wanted (whatever it was he *really* deep down wanted) and...

</Quote>: The largest beneficiary of this process was Virginia, the California of the founding era of the nation, according to Time, with 12 out of 91 electoral votes—over a quarter of the 46 votes required for victory. In the 1800 census, Pennsylvania, which did not enslave people at the time, had 10 percent more free citizens than Virginia, but 20 percent fewer electoral votes. </end quote>

Gerrymandering avant la lettre!

Fascinating stuff! Historians must enjoy this kind of thing!

Now, as to the present time: if the Electoral College follows the "fitness" reasoning and acts it will soon see an Amendment (from Republican side) making the Popular Vote the one deciding factor.

And, perversely, if the Electoral College does *not* follow that "fitness" reasoning... it will also see an Amendment (from Democratic side), declaring it archaic & useless and being replaced by Popular Vote.

I do not see how it can be otherwise. Damned if they do, damned if they don't...

Except...

</Quote>: The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), three medium- size states (MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA).

The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 states—most recently by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Arizona House, a 28–18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, a 57–4 vote in New York Senate, and a 37–21 vote in Oregon House.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.


State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Also, state winner-take-all statutes have allowed candidates to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in four of our 57 presidential elections—1 in 14 times.

A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. A shift of 214,393 votes in 2012 would have elected Mitt Romney despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of almost 5,000,000 votes.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....” The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would not take effect until enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).

Under the compact, the winner would be the candidate who received the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) on Election Day. When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states.

The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. </end quote>

.... in which case they may continue as "Electoral College" but in a purely ceremonial sense. Just like a Rembrandt in a museum...

14-11-2016

The Netherlands and Climate Change.

Climate change for the Netherlands will have at least these consequences: warmer summers (and killer heat waves in Western Europe), strangely enough also more severe cold spells, more intense downpours and of course sea level rise. Most likely also more intense storms.

Warmer summers may see more winners than losers here, provided agriculture adapts adequately. The result could be a somewhat longer growing season and, if chosen well, also more valuable crops. (I now grow kiwi’s in my back yard!) Note that a long heat wave in Western Europe (1999?) has reputedly cost an extra 30,000 lives above what was statistical normal for that time of the year


Cold snaps in winter! People will need to heat their homes (much) more and longer, but the State will profit in extra taxes, extra natural gas sales and even in more export sales.
year.

More intense downpours may adversely affect agriculture – "drowning" crops where drainage is bad – and may also require costly adaptation on (city) storm drain systems. In some places and instances we already see streets & cellars flooded, causing damage to property.


Sea level rise: while the Netherlands is renowned for water management, sea level rise may potentially spell doom for us. Our country's history is full of disastrous floods but lately we’ve grown complacent, counting on our advanced technology and superior “knowledge”. The last big disaster was in 1953 and by now most people forgot how bad it was.

Let’s throw in a little statistical figure: some 70% of the population is, and between 70% and 80% of GDP comes from below sea level!

Holland being a very small country, really densely populated and with very sophisticated and intricate water management systems it is not really workable to look at just *one part* of our country and devise adaptation plans.

But where most people – Coursera staff also, it seems – equate sea level rise and adaptation mostly with strong sea walls… In a river delta that is not the whole story. As I see it our biggest problems will come from upstream, France, Belgium, Switzerland & Germany. In most places we have forced the rivers into very narrow river beds and taken over the flood plains for our human activities. All over Europe we see in periods of extreme rainfall or snow melt flooding taking place. And all that water ultimately comes downstream to Holland.

And if a river in spate meets with higher sea levels… well, it spells trouble. After 1953 we have correctly identified our coastline as too long and too vulnerable to protect under extreme conditions: Spring Tide combined with a severe north-westerly gale. So we have devised our “Delta Plan” and shortened and strengthened our coastline. In most places we can probably already cope with 80 to 100 cm of sea level rise.

Of course even for Holland the question is: to what height can we / will we technically defend ourselves, will Belgium and Germany do the same (or are our “flanks” our weak points?) and to what point is it economically viable? 1 meter? 2 meters? Or, if the Greenland icecap melts, 7 meters?

In the heart of Holland lies the IJsselmeer. This used to be open sea with a long coastline untuil, after a big flood Ingenieur Cornelis Lely designed the IJsselmeer, Afsluitdijk, Houtribdijk and the polders, one of which I live in. Actually He came up with the concept of shortening our shorelines to improve our safety; the Delta Plan was the second stage…

There is however a limit to how much water it can hold without risk of catastrophic flooding to major parts of Holland. We have strengthened our defences “on the outside” but on the inside they are - in parts - just as weak as a century ago!

With rising sea levels getting rid of water flowing into the IJsselmeer through the rivers is severely limited and it even now sometimes presents a challenge already. Storms, moon phases all conspire to let the system drain only a limited amount at low tides, 2 times a day.

To adapt large pumps, or other alternatives are under consideration. To have the level in the IJsselmeer fluctuate a lot, or go up permanently, with knock on effects on our drinking water is not considered a good adaptation. Several areas have now been designated where the level of protection will be of a (much) lower standard, leaving people the choice to use and invest in these areas or not.

In the polders we experience problems with extreme downpours; even though we can anticipate and start pumping in advance the pumping capacity was installed in the 1950’s and we did not anticipate this global warming back then. There may come a time when we can no longer accept flooding within the polders and must adapt by installing bigger or more pumps.

(Gemaal Wortman, the pumps near my hometown: 4 x 500.000 l/min, @  lowest point in the polder)

 Another adaptation, making the best of things, along our rivers we are now identifying areas with little or no economic importance to, as we call it, “give them back to nature.”  We turn them into (valuable) nature reserves where a river in spate can temporarily store some of its water. But parts of the “Betuwe” and east of Rotterdam are at risk. To “protect” these we may have to resort to flood other parts of Holland intentionally. And that is now, before the adverse effects of climate change in the coming decades really hit us.

In the long term – depending on how much warmer it gets how fast – Most of the Netherlands will have “to be given back to nature”, the most extreme form of “adaptation”. My daughter, now 10 years old, will hopefully not see that happening, but human nature being what it is… that moment will come. Her “ancestral home” is some 5 meters below sea level

 (Gemaal Wortman; note the cars to get a feel for 5,5 mtr.)
 

One would think therefore that Holland, like say Bangladesh and the Pacific Island States has a vested interest in mitigation; adaptation being to all intents and purposes useless in the long run! Well, our government in it’s infinite wisdom is too busy pumping every last cubic meter of natural gas out of our soil and sell it. They intend to look for shale gas wherever it might possibly be.                                    
Renewable energy, specifically (residential) solar panels are – some (and I’m one) would say actively – discouraged. Wind turbines are now being deployed on land and in our coastal waters… by the same electricity producers that have built - and in part brought on-stream – coal-fired thermal power plants! Coal fired power plants are hard to “turn down” so when much wind provides much renewable energy… we decouple the wind turbines!  And an even bigger ‘blind spot” is heat(ing)!! Everywhere we talk about electricity production… yet heat accounts for around FIFTY percent of all primary energy use!

Eons ago our ancestors came down the rivers to populate this area we now call Holland. And with the sorry state of affairs worldwide and at home… we may end up moving back upstream. choosing he ultimate Adaptation Strategy: Migration.

Could the U.N. be more effective against Climate Disruption?

UNFCCC:

If you would have asked a bunch of lawyers to draft a treaty to stifle any action, the UNFCCC would be it!

Our technological advances have not been equaled by advances in society, quite the contrary. We stick to the concept of sovereignty as if it is our lives’ blood & DNA… but it will be our downfall instead.

We have just one biosphere, this earth. Our almost infinite drive for profit, here and now, often affect that whole biosphere. Yet we are not held accountable because of sovereignty.

Fossil Fuels:

The comparison between fossil fuel companies and tobacco companies has been made many, many times.

They both create addictions, and both kill their addicts, for a quick profit. They both cite “inconclusive science” and even employ the same Public Relations companies and –tactics to continue to peddle their products and kill.

But cigarettes work and kill on a (mostly) individual level, whereas fossil fuel companies know no boundaries and kill globally, potentially all mankind even.

Citing energy poverty they now try to move in on (f.i.) poor African countries, asking them to make huge investments in fossil power plants and the infrastructure needed to distribute that energy.

Investments:

Some Banks have taken tentative steps stopping investments of their money in Coal fired power plants; a first step, a promising step in the right direction but inadequate on a Global Scale

There may be sound economic reasons for a given company to construct a small power plant. Those same economic reasons really should dictate Renewable Energy in most if not all cases. For big multinationals there is no excuse *not* to invest in renewable energy! They have all the capital they need to do it, and in most cases it is investor's capital – not their own – in the first place!

This continued investing Other Peoples’ Money in the wrong way is very likely going to crash & burn our total World Economy sometime this century! Yet no one questions it? Why do we still allow investments in fossil fuel power plants, in fossil fuel mining, in fossil fuel exploration (in ever more dangerous and remote places) in fossil fuel transport facilities, refineries, you name it…?

Worldwide there is much talk how "we need to invest a Trillion (dollars, no doubt) in Renewable Energy. Right now we do precious little, but if we can redirect the flow of cash into fossil fuels projects you can be sure that major companies like Exxon, Shell, BP et al suddenly, overnight almost, become *Energy Companies*...

Quick fix?

Energy 2.0; can it be done? Well… do we have a choice?!

We can no longer accept the concept of sovereignty – both of countries and large multi-national corporations! – because they essentially threaten the financial stability as well as a liveable biosphere for future generations. So, time to act!

We have anti-trust laws that do not follow the principle of sovereignty, we even have set up (after the second World War and under threat of Atomic War) a U.N. Security Council that can adopt security resolutions. While each may not be perfect they do point out precedents to act upon I believe!

U.N. Energy Council?!

A U.N. Energy Council should investigate all large / large scale investments in (fossil fuel) energy. What large or large scale is, has yet to be defined; an amount, a percentage of GDP, a combination? Perhaps we should also include a *time scale*, say any investment in any fossil fuel activity lasting over 5 years, to allow for small-scale temporary solutions?

Maybe a setup somewhat like the Security Council will work, as long as we keep VETO rights out. That is why – in my idea – it should be a separate entity in the U.N., definitely not a part of the Security Council! I propose that both the most threatened states (together?) AND the young people (future generations!) have Permanent Seats, as they have the biggest vested interests.

The biggest fight of course will be over “mandatory” or “recommendation” when ruling on a project, an investment. But if a ruling states it endangers human existence, human prosperity, financial stability, would not most, or even all banks, pension funds and investment funds heed that advice, regardless if it is mandatory or recommendation?

That leaves Nation States who can act as they please and fund their projects. Sometimes a U.N Resolution does not stop war, life is not perfect. But the condemnation by the World, in public is a rebuke many States will find hard to ignore. We got to do something, start somewhere… NOW!

P.S. I intentionally use *energy* as electricity is about 17% of World Energy demand, *heat* around 3 times that much!

Provincie Flevoland en EHS?!

Om te beginnen een compliment: de Provincie Flevoland heeft een compleet en gedetailleerd overzicht - op kaart en in rapporten - van alle EHS gebieden, hun waarde en mogelijke ontwikkeling / potentie.

Rijk en de gezamenlijke Provincies hebben een brochure opgesteld en uitgebracht, waarin uitvoerig beschreven staat hoe er met de EHS gebieden omgegaan moet worden, juist ook bij uitzonderingen:

http://www.postbus5100.compleet-en-actueel.nl/pdf/rapport-Spelregels_EHS-aug2007-lnv.pdf

Het blijft mij dan ook verbazen dat een Provincie - die het enerzijds uitstekend doet - zodra er uitzonderingen gemaakt "moeten" worden deze gehele brochure "niet lijkt te kennen" en alles fout doet!

"Gezien de verschuiving van taken en bevoegdheden naar de provincie, beperkt de rijkstaak rond de EHS zich tot het sturen op hoofdlijnen. Het feitelijk begrenzen en herbegrenzen van de EHS en het toepassen van de EHS-saldobenadering is een bevoegdheid van de provincies (veelal Gedeputeerde Staten). Het toepassen van het compensatiebeginsel is een verantwoordelijkheid voor gemeenten."

Herbegrenzingen van EHS zijn dus aan spelregels gebonden, zowel qua aantonen van de noodzaak als aan het uitvoeren van de herbegrenzing. Veelal gaat het dan om "Herbegrenzing om *andere* dan ecologische redenen." Uit de brochure:

"Herbegrenzing om andere dan ecologische redenen is van toepassing indien provincies met behoud van de oorspronkelijke kwantitatieve en kwalitatieve ambitie de begrenzing van de EHS om andere dan ecologische redenen wensen aan te passen om een (kleinschalige) ruimtelijke ingreep mogelijk te maken. Hiervoor gelden strikte voorwaarden, zo moet de herbegrenzing leiden tot een versterking van de EHS in het betreffende gebied. Wordt aan deze voorwaarden niet voldaan dan is het plan niet
aanvaardbaar in die vorm."

In de praktijk echter wijst de Provincie Flevoland een *elders* gelegen al bestaand stukje natuur - bos oid, wat in het verleden *niet* als van voldoende betekenis voor EHS benoeming en bescherming werd beoordeeld - aan als compensatie ipv herbegrenzing, daarbij nimmer aangevend wat de minimale natuurwaarde van die compensatie moet worden, op welke termijn en hoe dat te bereiken. Compensatie, die qua uitvoering de verantwoordelijkheid van Gemeenten is. Compensatie verplichting die in alle gevallen in een apart document aan de initiatiefnemer(s) moet worden opgelegd!

Indien een Provincie herbegrenzing van een EHS gebied wil doorvoeren en niet aan de "nee, tenzij.." voorwaarden kan (of wil?) voldoen staat haar het instrument van de EHS-Saldobenadering ter beschikking.

"Harde eis is wel dat aan alle voorwaarden voor het toepassen van de saldobenadering wordt voldaan, zoals die in hoofdstuk 6 van dit beleidskader zijn benoemd. Alleen dan is immers per saldo winst voor de EHS gegarandeerd. Is dit niet het geval dan geldt onverkort het ‘nee, tenzij’-regime."

"Binnen de gebieden waar het ‘nee, tenzij’-regime van kracht is, zijn nieuwe plannen, projecten of handelingen niet toegestaan indien deze de wezenlijke kenmerken of waarden van het gebied significant aantasten, tenzij er geen reële alternatieven zijn èn er sprake is van redenen van groot openbaar belang. Voor ingrepen die aantoonbaar aan de criteria voldoen geldt het vereiste dat de schade zoveel mogelijk moet worden beperkt door mitigerende maatregelen."

"Het begrip ‘kwaliteit’ speelt naast de criteria ‘areaal’ en ‘samenhang’ een belangrijke rol in EHS-compensatie, EHS-saldobenadering en EHS-herbegrenzing... Feitelijk gaat het om de actuele èn potentiële waarden, gebaseerd op de natuurdoelen voor het gebied"

Gemeentelijke verantwoordelijkheid:

"Aan compensatie worden (onder meer) de volgende voorwaarden gesteld:
• geen nettoverlies aan waarden, voor wat betreft areaal, kwaliteit en samenhang;
• compensatie aansluitend of nabij het gebied, onder de voorwaarde dat een duurzame situatie ontstaat. Bij fysieke compensatie kan onteigening aan de orde zijn;..."

Provinciale verantwoordelijkheid:

"Het instrument herbegrenzen EHS om andere dan ecologische redenen dat de provincies tot hun beschikking hebben is een instrument voor kleinschalige uitzonderingsgevallen. Het is in geen geval bedoeld om het ‘nee, tenzij’-beschermingsregime te omzeilen."

"Criteria voor het proces:
• De kwaliteitswinst wordt niet gefinancierd uit reguliere EHS-middelen;
• Herbegrenzing is enkel toepasbaar bij kleinschalige ontwikkelingen en blijft beperkt tot het oplossen van knelpunten en het bieden van maatwerk."

"Criteria voor inhoudelijke afweging:
• Er vindt door de voorgestelde ruimtelijke ingreep slechts een beperkte aantasting plaats van de wezenlijke kenmerken en waarden van de EHS en van de samenhang van de EHS;
• Het initiatief moet uiteindelijk leiden tot een kwalitatieve en/of kwantitatieve versterking van de EHS in het betreffende gebied (voor definitie van een gebied: zie de inhoudelijke aspecten van de gebiedsvisie in hoofdstuk 6, EHS-saldobenadering)" 

Het is dus glashelder dat de huidige benadering van de provincie: "we noemen het herbegrenzing, maar wijzen in feite een stuk bestaande natuur elders, voorheen zonder bijzondere betekenis, aan als "compensatie"... daarmee ook nog eens de initiatiefnemers uit de wind houdend, uitdrukkelijk tegen de bedoelingen in druist.

Kort samenvattend: de Provincie Flevoland zou de brochure EHS Spelregels onverkort, naar letter en geest, uit moeten voeren en Provinciale Staten hebben de dure plicht daar voor te zorgen c.q op toe te zien!

Voetnoot... Een aantal begrippen zijn doelbewust interpretabel gelaten: 

"Ondersteuning bij uitwerking van begrippen:
In dit beleidskader worden regelmatig begrippen toegepast die een nadere uitwerking vragen, zoals ‘kleinschalig’, ‘beperkte aantasting’, ‘wezenlijk’ en ‘zo snel mogelijk’. Om een uitwerking per provincie en uiteindelijk maatwerk op gebiedsniveau mogelijk te maken is het niet zinvol deze begrippen op landelijk niveau in te vullen of te kwantificeren. In het algemeen geldt de stelregel dat dergelijke begrippen gerelateerd moeten worden aan de omvang, de kwaliteit en het doel van de EHS op de betreffende plaats. Zo kan gekomen worden tot een uitwerking van begrippen waaraan te toetsen is. Het is wel noodzakelijk dat in provinciale besluiten een goede motivering gegeven wordt waarom in bepaalde gevallen een bepaald element uit het EHS-beschermingsregime (‘nee,
tenzij’-regime, saldobenadering of EHS-herbegrenzing) van toepassing is. "

AARDWARMTE: Lonkend perspectief!

Woensdag 26-6 heb ik een hoorzitting / rondetafelgesprek (VERSLAG) bijgewoond over aardwarmte (of geothermie), georganiseerd voor leden van de Tweede Kamer. :-) Specialisten uit "het veld" kwamen ervaringen, inzichten en technieken delen en daar kwam een zeer positief beeld uit naar voren!

Hoewel je geneigd zou zijn om bij aardwarmte vooral aan landen zoals IJsland, Filipijnen e.d. met veel vulkanisme te denken is er in Nederland - verrassend genoeg - een zeer hoog potentieel. In theorie zou op de lange termijn de totale Nederlandse energievraag ermee gedekt kunnen worden! Of dat ook doelmatig en betaalbaar is, zal nog moeten blijken.

Bij aardwarmte moet je al meteen onderscheid maken tussen (relatief) lage temperatuur warmte en hoge temperatuur warmte. De laatste wordt benut voor het opwekken van elektriciteit. Er is - in Nederland - nog geen ervaring mee want dit vereist zeer diepe en dus zeer kostbare boringen. TransMark heeft wèl een concessie ("Friesland", inclusief puntje Noordoostpolder) voor ultradiepe geothermie. Tijdens deze sessie is daar niet specifiek op ingegaan. De literatuur vermeldt dat er dan geboord wordt naar "Hot Dry Rock" en dat onder gunstige omstandigheden met temperaturen van > 220° C stoom wordt verkregen, waarbij pompen niet meer nodig zou zijn en elektriciteit met een goed rendement wordt opgewekt. Maar in Nederland zul je dan mogelijk wel 6 of 7 KM diep moeten boren! Exorbitant kostbaar, nu nog...

Zoals de naam, HDR al aangeeft; het gaat hier om droge aardlagen waarbij de warmtetransmissie direct van steen op transmissievloeistof plaats vindt. Dat is meteen een belangrijk verschil met aardwarmte van lage temperaturen. Daarbij wordt specifiek geboord naar poreuze aardlagen die waterhoudend zijn. Die zitten minder diep en - prettig voor brede acceptatie - het zijn poreuze lagen die dus geen extra "Fracking" behoeven. HDR vereist wel "fracking" maar in veel gevallen zal enkel waterinjectie daarvoor voldoende zijn.

Even een voetnoot: Omdat de boringen voor aardwarmte naar waterhoudende aardlagen gaan (dan wel naar HDR) zal er geen grote lekkage van Methaangas plaatsvinden, dit in tegenstelling tot boren naar schaliegas. Daar Methaan in de eerste 20 jaar maar liefst 75 keer sterker opwarmt als CO² is dat niet onbelangrijk!

Een ander belangrijk aspect wat ter sprake kwam: de voorsprong die Nederland heeft... sedert de 60er jaren is er in Nederland (voor zo'n 50 miljard) geboord en seismisch getest en tot dik 2 KM is er een vrijwel compleet en zeer gedetailleerd beeld van de ondergrond... en dat is publiek goed waardoor iedereen z'n kansen in kan schatten en benutten. Een aardgas erfenis, zeg maar. Boor je véél dieper dan is dat "beeld" minder gedetailleerd, waardoor het risico op een "misser" toeneemt, juist bij de duurste boorprojecten!

De sprekers waren vrij unaniem: we kunnen (en moeten) inzetten - vooralsnog - op "laagwaardige" aardwarmte. Laagwaardige aardwarmte leent zich prima voor verwarming, soms ook voor bedrijfsprocessen - denk aan drogen bvb - en dat maakt qua energiegebruik ongeveer 1/3 uit van het totaal voor Nederland. Het is technisch mogelijk om van de warmtevraag in 2020 met aardwarmte al 50% duurzaam te maken. (In theorie zou aardwarmte dus de 16% duurzame energie norm alleen kunnen vervullen) Maar dat vereist dan wel een grote groei en veel faciliteren van de overheid. De vergelijking met de aanleg van het aardgasnet werd gemaakt. Men meende te moeten beginnen met de uitrol bij reeds bestaande warmtenetten. Maar daar die ook nu al in veel gevallen op bvb restwarmte werken lijkt me daar niet veel "winst" te halen. Beginnen bij winkelcentra, grote kantoorgebouwen, (tropische-)zwembaden, kassen, fabriekshallen, zieken- en bejaardentehuizen... kortom de grootste warmte"consumenten" lijkt me.

In tegenstelling tot aardgas, olie, schaliegas, kolengas etc. komen waterdragende lagen met een geschikte temperatuur onder geheel Nederland voor, zie deze kaart met temperaturen op 2 KM diepte! Een aardwarmtebron aanboren is véél goedkoper dan bvb schaliegas!

Temperatuur op 2000 meter diepte  © TNO-NITG

Technisch bestaat de mogelijkheid aardwarmte vanaf zo'n 60°(!) C al in elektriciteit om te zetten, in z.g. Binary Cycle power plants. Deze hebben echter een laag rendement: zo'n 15% of zo.

In het recente verleden is er wel gespeculeerd op het mogelijk combineren van schaliegasboringen met aardwarmte als "bijvangst". Uit de verklaringen van de specialisten blijkt daarvan "niet echt sprake" te zijn.

Boren naar schaliegas doe je immers naar GAShoudende lagen, niet naar waterhoudende lagen. Bij olie- en (schalie-)gas boringen wordt gebruik gemaakt van "mud": een boorspoelstof die dient voor "smering" maar ook om gevonden olie of gas "onder controle" te houden. Bij een aardwarmteboring gebruik je dat niet. Zou je een schaliegasveld aanboren en benutten (los van alle bezwaren daartegen!) om daarna aardwarmte te gaan "oogsten" dan moet je tientallen jaren wachten... heeft de put boren een veelvoud gekost van een normale aardwarmteboring en moet je - om de extra GHG uitstoot (methaan!) te compenseren - extra veel geld uitgeven aan mitigatie van de klimaat verstoring. Twee keer veel *extra* kosten die je met beter rendement *nu* in duurzame energie kunt steken!

Mijns inziens betekent dat ook dat het idee om mislukte schaliegasboringen te benutten mogelijk wel wat besparingen oplevert maar ook technische problemen. Ook "op goed geluk" naar schaliegas boren denkende dat het anders wel voor aardwarmte benut zal worden is dan ook bedrijfsmatig niet verantwoord.

Dit verhaal is nog gebaseerd op de "oude" boortechnieken; er zijn drastische vernieuwingen op komst die diepe of zelfs ultra-diepe boringen veel goedkoper zullen maken. Technisch praten we dan over (supersnel) *laserboren* en carbon pijp & -casing. Boringen van 75 tot 100 DUIZEND foot wordt over gesproken..

Het rendement voor opwekking elektriciteit ligt op dit moment tussen de 20% en 25% (van het thermisch vermogen van de put), omdat er gepompt moet worden. Het ligt dus in de rede om de toekomstige ontwikkelingen goed te monitoren zodat ook opwekking van elektriciteit kan worden opgepakt.

Aardwarmte heeft, als de put eenmaal is geboord en de technische installatie staat, vrijwel geen operationele kosten! Afhankelijk van het gebruik zou een put uiteindelijk thermisch uitgeput (vergeef me de woordspeling) kunnen raken, maar als het economisch kan zou je een wisselend gebruik kunnen toepassen zodat de put ook weer "regenereert".

Sprekers waren niet echt gelukkig met de huidige beperking van EBN. Energie Bedrijf Nederland moet zich *nu* - qua energie - beperken tot risicodragend participeren bij olie- en gasboringen. Nog meer commentaar was er op de "aftopping" in de SDE+ regeling!

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY!

(the Dutch situation)

Wednesday June 26th I attended a hearing / roundtable conference on geothermal energy (or aardwarmte in Dutch), organized for members of the Dutch Lower House (2e kamer) Specialists from "the field" came to share experiences, insights and techniques and there was a shared &  very positive outlook on the future

Although you might be tempted to equate geothermal energy mainly with countries such as Iceland, Philippines, Kenya etc. with much volcanism, in Netherlands - surprisingly – there is a very high potential for geothermal energy. In theory &  in the long term the total Dutch energy needs might be covered! Whether that is practical and affordable, remains to be seen.

Geothermal energy: for starters one must immediately distinguish between (relatively) low caloric (or temperature) heat and high caloric heat. The latter is primarily utilized for generation of electricity. There is - in the Netherlands - no experience with that as yet because it requires very deep and therefore very costly drilling. (TransMark does have one concession ("Friesland", including tip Noordoostpolder) for ultra-deep geothermal well exploration. During this session that was not specifically addressed.)

The literature indicates that for electricity (present-day technology!) that wells be drilled into "Hot Dry Rock" and that under favourable conditions where > 220 ° C temperature steam is obtained, pumps would not be necessary and electricity with good efficiency is generated. But in the Netherlands you may have to drill 6 or 7 KM deep for that. Exorbitantly expensive, now ...

As the name suggests, HDR, this is dry strata in which the transmission of heat is directly from stone on transmission fluid. That is an important difference with geothermal low caloric energy.  Then one specifically drills into porous strata which are hydrous, and are located less deep plus – advantageous for wide public acceptance - they are porous layers so no "Fracking" is needed! HDR may require "fracking" but in many cases only high pressure water injection is sufficient.

Just a note: Because the drilling for geothermal aims for  water bearing strata (or  HDR) there is little or no chance for leakage of Methane, unlike with  drilling for shale gas. Since Methane in the first 20 years as much as 75 to 100 times more potent greenhouse gas as CO ² that is hugely important!

Another important aspect that was mentioned: the Netherlands has  a lead over other countries... since the 60s, in the Netherlands (for about 50 billion (guilders probably?)) drilling and seismic testing has yielded an almost complete and very detailed image of the subsurface top 2 KM ... AND it is public domain, allowing everyone to use it improving one’s chance for success. A national heritage, so to speak. Drill much deeper than that however and the "image" is less detailed, increasing the risk of a "Miss", so right now the deeper you drill the bigger the cost, uncertainty and risk 

The speakers were quite unanimous: we can (and should) use "low-caloric" geothermal energy. Low caloric – less than 100°C - geothermal energy is perfect for heating, sometimes for business - think of drying things for example - and in terms of energy about 40% of the total primary energy use for the Netherlands is heat! Some 55% of that heat demand is low caloric. By 2020 50% of that heat demand could be geothermal energy. Best start sustainable heating at malls, large office buildings, (tropical-) swimming pools, greenhouses, factories, hospitals and retirement homes ... In short, the biggest heat "consumers”.

Are water bearing Unlike natural gas, oil, shale gas, coal gas, etc. layers with a suitable temperature below the Netherlands for, see this map with temperatures on 2 KM depth! A geothermal resource well drilling is much cheaper than shale gas: different techniques!

In the recent past there was speculation among politicians in Holland on the possible combining shale gas wells with geothermal as a bonus once the field are empty. Looking at the major differences in technique as well as the targeted strata in both cases, that’s obviously not viable!

In my view this also means that the idea to exploit a failed shale gas well drilling for geothermal energy instead will not work most of the time because of technical problems. So "pot luck" shale gas drilling thinking it will otherwise be used for geothermal company is NOT a good idea.

Technically it is possible to use geothermal energy from about 60 ° (!) C already to generate electricity  in so-called Binary Cycle power plants. However, they have a low efficiency: about 10 to 15% or so and generate 1 MW or less it seems. Good for “individual“ use, buildings etc, but not for the national power grid.

The efficiency for electricity generation from (ultra-)deep wells is currently between 20% and 25% (of the thermal power of the well), because in most every case one has to pump water in and out of the well.

New developments in drilling & well casings will be game changers for geothermal electricity so they need constant monitoring on the status of developments.

Geothermal energy is, once the well is drilled and the technical installation is in situ there are virtually no operating costs! Depending on usage, a thermal well might eventually be exhausted but if it is economical to pause production, the well will "regenerate".

================================

The near future?!!

This all is still based on drilling techniques that have essentially been in use since the mid 1800’s! But there are revolutionary innovations being developed, they right around the as it were, that will make deep or ultra-deep drilling much cheaper and in double-quick time! Actually; we’re going to need new definitions what deep or ultra-deep is… 

Technically: * laser drilling * and “composite” pipe & casing. Boreholes from 75,000 to 100 THOUSAND foot are already being talked about ..

This will be HUGELY significant! Most thermal power plants generate electricity by burning fossil fuel, often coal! It will be relatively easy and very cost-effective to replace the boiler part and use geothermal steam instead! Existing plants, already hooked up to the power grid must be quickly made emission-free, starting with the coal-fired ones!

Wolves should remain protected!

The United States proposes to remove the protected status of wolves. 

Delisting Wolves?

Dear Sirs, Ladies,

We would like to stand here before you, defending these beautiful, yet much maligned creatures with arguments like: “it’s wonderful & magical to hear them howl on a Cold Winter’s Night”… but unfortunately in this day and age that is unlikely to sway you!

All life, be it plant, animal or human should have value, other than monetary, yet that’s all that seems to count; the money. We can “calculate” the value of an old solitary oak tree or a black rhino in the wild. However, looking beyond that, seeing that tree as a minute piece of the all-encompassing puzzle named Earth, more often than not we fail to do!

Wolves – like all creatures – are an integral part of the ecology. Take away too many stones from a foundation and that building comes tumbling down, take away the top level predators and your ecology will change. Just that has been shown to happen in recent times! In Yellowstone National Park the wolf was re-introduced successfully after having been gone for over seven decades. The results surpassed the expectations; scientific studies have shown a marked INCREASE in biodiversity!

Delisting the wolf and allowing it to be hunted to extinction will have consequences far beyond the emotional: there will be negative effects far and wide.

The wolves’ prey – ungulates, like deer, elk – unlike the wolf itself, are not self-regulating species! Take away the top level predator and they will thrive and multiply, and continue to do so! What that might mean is perhaps best demonstrated by the gruesome history of St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea. Reindeer brought there by the army as a backup source of meat were left to fend for themselves, without any predators. The result was a population explosion, a barren rock and then a total collapse: the reindeer died out completely.

A somewhat comparable situation exists today, in the middle of Holland, strangely enough. A –fenced-in – nature reserve, the Oostvaardersplassen saw ungulates introduced to give all kinds of birds a better living environment. But no predators exist and none can get there.

 

Instead of lush vegetation, *this* is what you now see: a rather desolate landscape.

On the other hand, in densely populated Germany the wolf has returned of it’s own accord, mainly migrating from Poland. But the German Government is happy to see them, protects them and offers compensation for the occasional sheep that gets taken. Normally wolf-packs will hunt deer, elk, wild boar, not domestic animals.

Sheep seldom fall prey to wolves but a rogue- or wounded one might be tempted on occasion. However, sheep can be effectively protected from wolf predation if only one is willing!

Protecting all cultivated crops from ungulates will be many times more costly than protecting sheep and offering reimbursement when predation took place.

If the deer and wild boar are left unchecked they will cause damage to crop cultures, each in a different way but there will be an increasing loss of dollars. If the deer, elk, wild boar are not hunted they WILL become more prevalent and bolder, venturing into areas where they now do not go. Collisions with cars will be more and more common and these will be very expensive; human lives will be lost!

Elk, when left unchecked, will become more and more prevalent, which will have a negative side-effect on rivers and brooks in the area. That in turn will negatively effect the Trout population, having financial impact on fishermen.

Also a regular part of wolves’ diets: beavers. Wolves that prey upon beavers provide an economically valuable service to human society. Trapping can also reduce or limit beaver numbers, but it is often not effective for a number of reasons. Each year, beaver cause millions of dollars of damage to human communities by constructing dams that flood roads, railroads, houses and farmlands, and many millions more by damaging or destroying valuable timber through flooding forests, girdling trees or cutting them down and eating the seedlings and saplings.

Last but not least: wolves are enemies of coyotes, which are considered a pest in most of the USofA.

One more thing: if delisting one particular subspecies must happen “because it was listed in error, the wrong subspecies” that shows a major flaw in delisting some species but not all. If zoologists behind their desks have this much trouble determining which wolf is what, it does not take a genius to understand what will happen in the field. Any hunter with any kind of wolf in his sights will take the shot, unable to accurately determine if it’s the subspecies that is listed, or not?!

I suppose we all heard the tale of “little Red Riding Hood” and most humans harbor an instant dislike of wolves for the rest of their lives. That, just like the love of hearing them howl, telling us all is well with our ecology, is our emotional response to wolves.

So, in the final valuation, perhaps it is good to set aside emotions and simply appreciate the value of the wolf to society!