Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

What you need to know to teach about the Marcellus Shale

Best Practices in Marcellus Shale Education; March 18, 2013
by

Don Duggan-Haas

on 26 March 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of What you need to know to teach about the Marcellus Shale

Natural Gas 36% coal
9.9% Nuclear
31% hydro
19% Other renewables 3.5% Petroleum 1.5% What you need to know to teach
about the
Marcellus
Shale Key Ideas
and a key question: My State's Electricity: For most of the last twenty years, the top two sources of electricity in New York State have effectively been tied for first place. In 2008, each produced about 31% of the state's electricity.

Identify the top two sources for your state this list: My state's two largest electricity sources are:

Coal
Petroleum
Natural gas
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Other renewables The Marcellus Shale and its natural gas cannot be understood without understanding the larger energy system.
Our energy system is in constant flux.
All large-scale energy production has negative environmental impacts.
Which is more important? Where energy comes from or how much energy we use? Don Duggan-Haas, Ph.D.
PRI & its Museum of the Earth
Ithaca, NY
dad55@cornell.edu Costs Benefits 1/2 the CO2 emissions of coal. 1/2 the CO2 emissions of coal. Methane leaks & is a potent GHG. Methane burns cleaner than coal or oil. Jobs Boom - bust economic cycle Or:
Complexifying the Seemingly Simple. With support from the National Science Foundation. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant No. 1035078.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/age_of_elec_gen.cfm Why all the new natural gas at the turn of the century? Almost all the really old plants that are still online are hydro. More power came online in 2008 and 2009 from wind than from any other source. But coal is still in the picture. Most US nuclear plants came online between the late 1960s and early 1990s. Most coal fired power plants are more than 30 years old. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report , and Form EIA-860M (see Table ES3 in the March 2011 Electric Power Monthly)
Note: Data for 2010 are preliminary. Generators with online dates earlier than 1930 are predominantly hydroelectric. Data include non-retired plants existing as of year-end 2010. This chart shows the most recent (summer) capacity data for each generator. However, this number may change over time, if a generator undergoes an uprate or derate. 2009 data http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/north_carolina.html coal:
46.9% petroleum: 2% natural gas: 24% nuclear: 18% hydroelectric: 7.1% other renewables: 1.2% pumped storage: 0.3% other: 0.2% natural gas natural gas natural gas coal coal coal nuclear nuclear nuclear Electric Power Net Generation by State for selected states (2009 & 2010) Other gases includes blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.

Other includes non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuels and miscellaneous technologies.

Other renewables includes biogenic municipal solid waste, wood, black liquor, other wood waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind. hydro The Robert Moses
Power Plant at Niagara Falls came online in 1961, replacing the Schoellkopf Power Plant that collapsed into the Niagara Gorge in 1956. The Robert Moses Plant is responsible for most of this bump in the graph. Why isn't there much in the way of new hydro? A key piece of the reason is a lawsuit filed by states in the Northeast against Midwestern states over acid rain. The settlement led to the replacing coal generation with natural gas. Traditional hydropower requires flooding valleys or gorges and destroys habitats for both human and wildlife habitat. Hydropower plants have been taken offline in recent decades to restore habitats. Parts of the energy system are changing rapidly. Energy
portfolios vary substantially
across regions and across time. Water usage & water pollution possibilities. It's not coal. It requires the building of infrastructure that continues reliance on fossil fuels. Industrializes rural landscapes All large scale energy development ndustrializes landscapes Questions? http://www.museumoftheearth.org/marcellusshale If you use less energy it doesn't matter as much where it comes from. What are the environmental costs and benefits of emergent energy sources? In the coming decades, more energy is likely come to your home from local sources and they will have environmental consequences. http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/resources/energy_quiz/question_11.cfm# The daily amount of energy used in the United States, per person, is about as much energy as....

100 watt lightbulb left on for 103 days straight
707 quarter-pound hamburgers
Half a tank of gasoline (7 gallons)
All of the above Lot's of useful stuff here:
http://www.eia.gov/ Coal
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Other Gases
Nuclear
Hydroelectric Conventional Other Renewables
Wind
Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic
Wood and Wood Derived Fuels
Geothermal
Other Biomass
Pumped Storage
Other Where does electricity come from? For the sake of time, we'll look at just the biggest piece. How do we make sense of the costs and benefits of all that? Current energy practices have costs too. Let's look at it. A good book for thinking about climate change... ...that we can adapt approaches from for thinking about energy. Let's look at a more detailed picture... http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html http://www.gregcraven.org/ Explore the data in Excel. Handouts What's the worst that could happen in relation to different energy sources? A specific set of considerations related to natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale: Many Americans heat their homes and the hot water within their homes with natural gas. A growing portion of our electricity also comes from natural gas.
Where should that gas come from?
Or, should we stop heating our air and water and generating electricity with natural gas?
If we do stop these practices, what should we do instead?
Who is paying the environmental cost for our current energy habits?
Who would pay the costs if the resource is developed?
What environmental and economic costs will come due at a later date? Questions to consider for any energy source: What are the environmental costs and benefits of current energy practices?
For the current practice and for the proposed development, what happens to the environment at the point of extraction?
What wastes are generated and disposed of away from the point of extraction?
What happens to the environment as a result of use?
Per unit of energy generated, how do these impacts compare for the different energy sources being considered? (This may be a comparison of a proposed or new source to current practice.)
Which is greater, the cost of development or the cost of efficiency measures? Stated another way, in the consideration of developing a source that provides 45MW hours/year, would it be more beneficial (or more costly) to reduce consumption by 45 MW hours/year instead? These questions generally frame the issue as a choice between developing a new energy source and maintaining current practice. There are more than two choices. What other options exist?
Are they being seriously considered?
Are they practical? Why or why not? Click here for more pointed questions to consider for any energy source:
Are accidents known to kill or injure people? Consider extraction, transit, and use. How does the death and injury rate compare to other sources per unit of energy?
Does standard use alter the environment in ways known to kill or injure people? How does the death and injury rate compare to other sources per unit of energy?
Are there political costs or benefits associated with this energy source? Is the military involved in the protection of this resource? Greg Craven, author of What's the Worst That Could Happen, on climate change. Consider how to adapt the argument to new energy sources. In the NSTA presentation, I opened an Excel spreadsheet I'd previously downloaded from the EIA website and graphed a few things. You can do the same. In terms of energy production: One big nuclear power plant = 3000 big wind turbines =
50 sq. mi. of PV Which has the worst environmental impact? What's the wisest thing to do given the uncertainties and the risk? (just the first
few minutes) http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/us.html Enron played a role too. The Museum of the Earth provides scientific information about unconventional drilling in the Marcellus Shale. In our outreach related to the Marcellus Shale, the Museum of the Earth will not take a position supporting or opposing drilling in the Marcellus Shale. A fundamental goal of our work is to provide evidence-based information and to build understanding of the science related to the Shale, the extraction techniques employed in gas recovery from the Shale, and associated environmental impacts. Project partners also help nurture understandings of the economic and cultural impacts of decisions related to Marcellus Shale development. We strive to do this work with as little bias as possible.

More information about our Marcellus Shale outreach efforts can be found here: http://www.museumoftheearth.org/marcellusshale Why did I include the poll? Engaging relevant conceptions matters. Petroleum other renewables coal natural gas nuclear But first a caution... The tools we highlight from Craven's book are appropriate for use in the classroom or for educational outreach, but the book itself should be used cautiously in these activities if at all. The credibility spectrum and decision grid are unbiased, but their presentation in the book is more complicated. Some people find Craven's presentation amusing, others find it condescending. Read it with careful consideration before adopting for use in teaching or outreach. Sources of information about our energy system This is just the start of a resource collection. It will be added to as time allows. Suggest resources by emailing Don Duggan-Haas: dad55@cornell.edu http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ Many of the statistics included in this presentation come from the EIA website. http://eia.gov The U.S. Energy Information Administration http://www.ren21.net/ Where does each belong on the credibility spectrum? Download the packet here:
http://bitly.com/STANYS2011_No_Free_MW What one STANYS audience said... The right answers There are
already a lot of gas
wells in New York State. http://andyarthur.org/fodder/energy/whatdoesnatural.html (same link as above) These images show the locations of Chautaugua County gas wells. The sequence begins
zoomed in on the Chautauqua
Institution. Note the scale bar
in the bottom left of each image.

These are NOT Marcellus Shale
wells (most are in the Medina
Sandstone). The images are
included here to show that
there are already many gas
wells in New York State. Zoom out Zoom out Zoom out The ways you choose to look influences what you see. Beautiful Chautauqua! It's the same beautiful place, we've just highlighted something in these views... Resources for learning more of the relevant science...
(links in purple) http://epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=92387 http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Pages/default.aspx Cornell Cooperative Extension Natural Gas Resource Center Paleontological Research Institution Marcellus Shale Outreach U.S. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources NYS Water Resources Institute at Cornell University http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/ http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas Penn State Extension Natural Gas NYS DEC Marcellus Shale http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011) http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.html Submit comments to the DEC Comments will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. January 11, 2012 This presentation can be found on Science Beneath the Surface blog. http://eia.gov The U.S. Energy Information Administration Many of the statistics included in this presentation come from the EIA website. Follow the arrow below to submit comments to the DEC The Google Earth file linked above contains additional information on the Marcellus Shale and the broader energy system. Some imagery from: ...with appreciation! ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/er/ny/troy/Williams/ As we watch, think about how this video would be received by different audiences.
Consider: The nature of the argument
The nature of the presentation Starpoint Student Questions: 1. how exactly does the rock fracturing process work?
2. what size particles is the Marcellus shale broken up into during this process?
3. how much water is really used in this process?
4. how about the other "stuff" that is also pumped into the ground?
5. how much of the water pumped into the ground is retrieved? taken where?
6. is there any danger to the groundwater if this "stuff" is left in the ground?
7. what about land reclamation?
8. how strong is the "explosion" underground? any potential damage above ground?
9. are there any long term effects or don't we know yet? We further recognize that we cannot fully recognize or describe our own biases. And that no one else can fully recognize or describe their own biases. 1 2 3 coal natural gas Other gases Other renewables coal coal coal nuclear natural gas natural gas nuclear coal natural gas coal What are the two largest energy sources for electricity produced in your state?
Choose from this alphabetical list: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1035078.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=92387 slickwater
horizontal high-volume hydraulic fracturing A bit about in tight shale http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2893 slickwater
horizontal
high-volume
hydrofracking
in tight rock

But the combination is new. No individual piece of the
technological approach is new Substantially impacts rural areas http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3032/pdf/FS2009-3032.pdf http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html The overwhelming majority of
what goes down a well is water...
Plus a lot of sand.
But, with 4 million gallons for a typical well, if a half a percent is additives, that's 20,000 gallons of other stuff. According to the most recent estimate from the USGS, the Marcellus Shale contains about 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas. Rob Ross, Kelly Cronin, Joe Henderson, Trisha Smrecak, & our educator participants. With thanks to... http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway A statistic
& a question One large nuclear plant produces as much electricity as... The 4.6 GW Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario 3,000 large windmills The 100.5 MW Noble Bliss Windpark (67 1.5 MW windmills) (So 46 Noble Bliss Windparks) ...or 50 square miles of photovoltaics. The 750 KW Solar Strand at the University of Buffalo (Over 6000 Solar Strands) Which of these is worse for the environment? The 650 MW AES Somerset Coal Power Plant in Niagara County ...two to four large coal plants (7 of these or about 15 plants the size of the 312MW AES Cayuga Plant) ...which is powered by Appalachian coal... Conclusions: The implications of extracting gas from shale are better understood from a systems perspective. “GRAND BALL GIVEN BY THE WHALES IN HONOR OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE OIL WELLS IN PENNSYLVANIA”, VANITY FAIR, 1861 See it to scale here:
http://prezi.com/pgd7z-dagvwt/the-scale-of-marcellus-shale/ 2009 Is slickwater high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing bad for the environment? Yep. Can we ask richer questions? Is hydraulic fracturing less bad for the environment than what we are doing now or might reasonably do in the near future to get the energy we to make our society function? See this map as a standalone Prezi here:
http://prezi.com/tmkj6gqlb0nr/electricity-portfolios-of-us-states/ That shows some of the ways that electricity production is changing. How we use electricity is changing in really important ways too. 2% of US electricity production goes to data centers.
90% of adults in the world are projected to have cell phones by 2014.
The ripple effects through the energy system of these changes are substantial.
The Internet has shrunken the energy use of an array of activities while increasing it in others. 2010 Take the poll here: http://bit.ly/CLNGateway I know that most people get the question wrong. Can we make informed decisions about changes to the energy system if we don't know where we currently get our energy? We are striving to help people switch mental gears from gut responses to more analytical approaches; from System 1 to System 2. That gives a decent quick overview of much relevant information. Key Knowledge Categories: The science of how to teach; Pedagogical Content Knowledge (the special knowledge for teaching a particular subject); The science of the Marcellus Shale; A bottom line idea: We need to use a whole lot less energy. But information isn't enough to build scientific understanding. Sociocultural issues matter a great deal. More information is likely to further polarize. Controversial issues involve conflicting worldviews Gateway drugs... Accepting... evolution is seen as a gateway drug to atheism. global warming or environmental regulation are seen as gateway drugs to socialism hydraulic fracturing and nuclear power are seen as a gateways to environmental ruin If you have a smartphone or computer, please take a moment to answer a question in an online poll. Where you see this icon, there's more content. Click to zoom in on it if time allows. Responses: http://bit.ly/CLNGatewayResponses Check out the history of peat as a
fuel source:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/09/peat-and-coal-fossil-fuels-in-pre-industrial-times.html

There is a long history of finding a fuel source, nearly exhausting it; and then mining or harvesting it in ways that are increasingly damaging to the environment and expensive. Then, a new source emerges, reducing one set of environmental problems while creating new ones.

The cartoon was brought to my attention in Richard Alley's presentation found here:
http://cleanet.org/files/cln/cln_alley_27mar12_pptx_1_file.pptx (if set up as a single strand as wide as UB's Solar Strand, it would stretch from Buffalo to Denver) (But solar can go on roofs) Reducing energy demand is fundamental to reducing environmental degradation. Should we use this kind of energy? And... Should we use this much energy? Screen grabs from that Google Earth file are included within this presentation. The light green roughly paralleling the Lake Ontario shoreline shows where the Marcellus Shale is exposed in New York State. The shale is found only south of that line. The area of light green mostly obscured by the text balloon shows where the Utica Shale is exposed. virtualfieldwork.org/downloadabledocs/MEPD/Marcellus.kmz Take the poll here: http://bit.ly/CLNGateway virtualfieldwork.org/downloadabledocs/MEPD/Marcellus.kmz Click the link to open the poll in a separate tab. Exit full screen mode to see the new tab. There's more.
What follows within this Prezi is the content for a second presentation, originally given at the National Science Teachers' Association Annual Conference in 2011. To learn more about the geography of energy, see: http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/. In July, 2012, New York produced twice as much electricity from natural gas than from any other single source.
http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/?sid=NY#tabs-4
Production sources vary substantially month to month. http://www.eia.gov/ To learn more about what you need to understand to teach about the Marcellus Shale, see: http://bit.ly/MarcellusShalePCK 1/4 mile Most recent data... ...in a friendly way. Without forgetting about the importance of simple. USE A LOT LESS ENERGY. (lightbulbs are important, but not enough). Producing evidence-based materials that do not advocate. What we're doing... Working with educators across selected communities: K-12 Teachers
College & University
Nature Center
Museum And public programming Using a systems approach with a range of experts Treating the Marcellus as one case of an emergent energy issue One group in Elmira, a second in Binghmaton. And we have a long history of dealing with controversial issues: And we have a long history of dealing with controversial issues: Evolution
Climate
The Marcellus Shale Of the thousand or so New York State residents I've polled in my audiences so far, about 40 have correctly identified natural gas & nuclear as the two largest energy sources for electricity generated in state. Educational
Recommendations: Use one’s place in the world as a starting point to engage in critical inquiry of the forces working to shape that place (geology, ecology, capital flows, law, etc.) Questions? dad55@cornell.edu http://bit.ly/GSAMarcellus Transcend disciplinary boundaries - controversial issues are interdisciplinary. Be aware of the limits of your own worldview when communicating. Work to complexify your own understanding Affirm relevant worldviews without reinforcing myths. Engage relevant existing conceptions about the broader energy system Answer the obvious question: Is hydrofracturing bad for the environment? Yes, and... Reframe the discussion away from the most obvious question to something richer and more complex. Draw attention to complexifying the seemingly simple and also to the simple bottom line message. Allow people to protect self worth. Argument in the vernacular sense of shouting at one another is more likely to reinforce polarization rather than reduce it. Want more? http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway This presentation: A much larger presentation giving an overview of both the Marcellus Shale and the larger energy system. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/why-you-should-be-optimistic-about-renewables-one-chart Coal 45% http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/?sid=NY Systems science; and; The roles of culture, economics, & politics; http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway This presentation is largely excerpted from a longer presentation




found here: Two Important Questions: http://bit.ly/MarcellusShalePCK There’s no such thing as a free megawatt:
the Marcellus Shale as a Gateway Drug to Energy Literacy nuclear natural gas coal hydro Petroleum other renewables “GRAND BALL GIVEN BY THE WHALES IN HONOR OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE OIL WELLS IN PENNSYLVANIA”, VANITY FAIR, 1861 Social Math A key challenge is teaching scale Using familiar examples is helpful. The Reflecting Pool = 4,000,000 gallons
Full transcript