All of sudden, everybody seems to love natural gas. At the National Clean Energy Summit in Vegas recently, everybody fell all over themselves praising it – Al Gore, former Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth, former Obama transition team chief John Podesta. T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal pointing out its advantages as a “bridge fuel” to a lower carbon future.
What gives? Well, in the last 18 months, two things have happened. First, there have been massive natural gas strikes in Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. The United States is now estimated to have more than 100 years supply at current rates of consumption. (And it may be much more than that.) Second, tapping that gas is now much easier, thanks to a new process known as hydro-fracking, which pumps high pressure water (and other chemicals) into the rock, freeing the gas. It also doesn’t hurt that natural gas is far and away the cleanest burning fossil fuel, more than 50 percent cleaner than coal.
But natural gas has never been a leading player in the world energy story, only a supporting cast member. The reasons historically have been tied to limited availability. (Aside from the recent US discoveries, most of the world’s proven natural gas reserves are in Russia and Iran. Hardly trustworthy sources.) Because the supply has historically been uncertain, prices have tended to fluctuate wildly, spiking in the late 1990s (with help from Enron) to a seven-year low just the other day (thanks to the recession). Coal is dirty, but its supply is domestic, reliable and its price is very, very cheap. No wonder utility companies have preferred it to natural gas.
But now that’s changing. With plentiful domestic gas supplies now at hand, the advantages of natural gas become obvious. Pipelines already criss-cross the country to get the gas where it’s needed. Natural gas generators can be added quickly and easily to existing power plants with minimal NIMBY issues, unlike coal. With all those pluses, the Waxman-Markey bill’s proposal to spend tens of billions of dollars perfecting clean coal (and hardly anything on increasing the use of natural gas) is nonsensical.
So the recent popularity of natural gas makes sense, but when did sense have anything to do with the making of energy policy? It certainly doesn’t explain the sudden interest on the part of so many players on the political left. Here’s a guess: it’s safe to say that the likes of John Podesta don’t do anything without the sign-off of the White House. I think the Obama White House sees cap and tax going down – hard. Healthcare is inhaling so much political oxygen, cap and tax is likely to be smothered. (So to speak.) I sense they are developing a fall-back position for when their energy policy crashes and burns. If that is indeed the case, then maybe the Obamaites are more sensible than I give them credit for.
14 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Aug 21, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Natural gas has a few major advantages … significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal burning, not to mention much much less emissions of traditional nasties like metals and particulate. Also, natural gas is a much better partner with renewables than coal – because natural gas power plants can much more easily be “ramped” up and down to respond to real time grid conditions that result when winds pick up or decrease, sunny afternoons versus cloudy mornings. Coal plant efficiencies both in power production and pollution control, drop significantly when operating with a lot of variability.
The downside is water – a lot of the enhanced production methods are relying heavily on water fractionation of formations, and that produces some nasty brines to be discharged. In areas where water is plentiful, less a problem than in western areas where water supply is precious, and where waterways are low-flow enough that they can easily be contaminated.
2 lasulasu // Aug 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“…but when did sense have anything to do with the making of energy policy?”
You are of course referring to the “Drill Here Drill Now” and “Drill Baby Drill” silliness from 2008 Election?
Support for natural gas electricity generation by environmentalists, how is that surprising? Environmentalists are concerned with reducing CO2 emissions as rapidly as possible. Natural gas has always been part of that mix. If you have a sufficient and reliable source of natural gas, the cost/benefit in CO2 reduction over a short to medium time line using natural gas is obvious.
Question is, is it probable that there will be a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC formed at some point?
3 SFTor1 // Aug 21, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Norway and Russia have been supplying Germany and other parts of Europe with natural gas for years.
It certainly is a big deal in Europe.
Apart from that I can certainly endorse the conclusions. We should be running as much of our energy production as possible on this stuff.
4 sinz54 // Aug 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
NM Gusher sez: “I think the Obama White House sees cap and tax going down ….I sense they are developing a fall-back position for when their energy policy crashes and burns.”
I don’t see a contradiction between supporting cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) on the one hand, and supporting natural gas on the other. If America used natural gas in place of coal everywhere, our CO2 emissions from power plants would be much lower, which is what cap-and-trade was supposed to encourage. (Natural gas itself is a greenhouse gas, but nearly all of it gets burned in efficient furnaces.)
The fact that some conservatives have labeled cap-and-trade “cap and tax” suggests they’re not really serious about controlling greenhouse gas emissions. There is no way to control greenhouse gas emissions if the cost of pouring CO2 into the atmosphere is taken as zero by the free market. That the stratosphere is priced as if it’s free for the polluting represents a market failure that only a society, acting through its elected representatives, can correct.
lasulasu asks: “Question is, is it probable that there will be a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC formed at some point?”
If there is, it’s one cartel that North America will be dominating. Because North America and Russia, not the Middle East, are among the world’s largest suppliers of natural gas.
5 balconesfault // Aug 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Because North America and Russia, not the Middle East, are among the world’s largest suppliers of natural gas.
Not exactly – North America and Russia have the advantage of pipeline routes to major consumers – but the Middle East has seen significant construction of LNG liquification terminals recently, with Qatar about to add 31 million metric ton per annum of LNG to the global market. Meanwhile, numerous LNG receiving/gasification terminals are being or have been constructed in North America recently.
6 ottovbvs // Aug 21, 2009 at 5:36 pm
balconesfault // Aug 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Because North America and Russia, not the Middle East, are among the world’s largest suppliers of natural gas.”
……Russia has about 39% of proven reserves and the Middle East has about 40%……the rest of the world has the other 20%…….these numbers go up and down a bit with new finds but they are unlikely to alter dramatically and if they do it’s likely to be in Russia’s favor ………it is a wonderful resource but as you say consumes a lot of water to produce the ultimate product…….So a great resource but one that leaves us and Europe still heavily dependant on the middle east and a major power rival……not to mention the impact on the balance of payments …..it’s dangerous if it diverts us from the search for alternatives which confer greater strategic and economic independance
7 ottovbvs // Aug 21, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Because North America and Russia, not the Middle East, are among the world’s largest suppliers of natural gas.”
………I just checked North America has about 5% of proven reserves a couple of years ago………Collectively Europe has more than we do
8 lasulasu // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Updated estimates put us near the top.
Prior estimates: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/table6.pdf
Updated estimates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/business/energy-environment/18gas.html?_r=1
Though I would think that in my home state of Colorado, as well as in other western states, water issues will have an impact on actual extraction.
9 ottovbvs // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm
lasulasu // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:04 pm
“Updated estimates put us near the top.”
…………It’s 3.8% of the world’s total…….handy to have but for a country of 305 million people with about 22% of world GDP it’s impact is limited
10 sinz54 // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:40 pm
ottovbvs: There’s a difference between who has the largest proven reserves vs. who are the biggest current producers.
I stand by my statement: Currently, North America and Russia are the largest current producers.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2180rank.html
The Middle East may have more reserves:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2179rank.html
but they’re not supplying it in as big a quantity–at least not yet.
Hope this clears it up.
11 ottovbvs // Aug 22, 2009 at 9:17 am
sinz54 // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:40 pm
” sinz54 // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“ottovbvs: There’s a difference between who has the largest proven reserves vs. who are the biggest current producers…………..I stand by my statement: Currently, North America and Russia are the largest current producers.”
…………Of course there is……..but we’re talking about a long term energy resource……..how long is the US going to remain one of largest producers particularly if we’re depleting at a fair rate…….In 1900 the US was the world’s largest producer of oil……..as it happens NG prices are fairly depressed at the moment so that will probably slow down middle eastern and Russian development (and ours too btw) but within 20 years I’m sure we’ll be dwarfed by the middle east.
12 LFC // Aug 22, 2009 at 9:29 am
Natural gas has another huge advantage. When you start up a coal fired power plant, it takes a full day to bring it up to temperature (to avoid damaging the boilers), and it has to burn 24 hours a day. A typical coal fired boiler produces anywhere from a few hundred MW to over 1,000 MW.
Natural gas in a combustion gas turbine can produce 100-300 MW, takes up minimal space in comparison, and can be up and running in less than 30 minutes. They are often used for peak load. The heat from the exhaust of multiple units can be used to make steam, and so achieve greater efficiency through co-generation. The advantage of being able to start up your power generators in the morning and turning them off in the evening, burning no fuel for 8-10 hours a day, is enormous.
Natural gas isn’t the ultimate solution, but it certainly can be helpful in the interim.
13 vfguerin // Aug 23, 2009 at 4:06 am
My Dad and I have been running our vehicles on alternate fuels since the mid-seventies starting with diesel then natural gas and propane.
In recent decades, we’ve been wondering why fueling stations have been shutting down their NGV pumps here in Western Canada. They’re shutting down all over to the extent that it’s becoming inconvenient to run a vehicle on NG and the government has discontinued it’s grant program for conversions!
Early this year, I attended a lecture about the Alberta tar sands and the environmental nightmare that’s being perpetrated there. At this lecture I found out that massive amounts of BC and Alberta’s natural gas reserves are being diverted from the consumer market for use in creating steam for use in extracting oil from the bitumen in the tar sands. The amount of NG that it takes to extract the oil from the bitumen is worth more than the oil that is extracted. At the rate they are burning the NG, they will exhaust all of BC and Alberta’s NG reserves by 2030. All of this in order for Canada to be able to supply 30% of US oil demand presently.
In other words, a clean burning fuel is being squandered in order to produce a dirty burning fuel, not to mention the ‘collateral damage that’s being done to the environment in the vicinity of the tar sands.
14 Pickens Plan Media Coverage 8.22.09-8.24.09 | Sustainability In Business // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:04 am
[...] Why Natural Gas Makes Economic Sense – NewMajority.com – 8/21/09 [...]
You must log in to post a comment.