[Graeme]

Is The Nat Gas Bridge Finally Being Built ?

It's about time. I have said in many past writings over the years that the U.S. is the global village idiot when it comes to energy policy. I'd like to reiterate that here. But there seems to be a change happening in Washington D.C. that is warming the heart of me, T. Boone Pickens, Jim Cramer, Harry Reid, and a whole new army of nat gas fans.

I have described the danger of trying to safely get to a post carbon world without a carbon bridge. The problem with solar, hydrogen, ethanol, and wind is that they take about as much fossil fuel to make these forms of energy as the energy it gives us. They do not displace much fossil fuel if any. There are exceptions, like sugar ethanol. However, until we have a good scientific handle on what is really worth a big infrastructure build, in net energy terms, we desperately need a good old fashioned high net energy bridge fuel -- like natural gas.

seekingalpha

[Graeme]

Gas no good to bridge coal and renewables, says study

THE amount of greenhouse gases released by unconventional gas drilling ''exceeds that of oil or coal'', an American study says in contradiction of some claims made by Australia's growing coal-seam gas industry.

Cornell University researchers analysed the volume of methane leaking from shale-gas wells in the US and concluded that using more gas would make climate change worse, rather than better.

The credibility of the study, to be published in the peer-reviewed Climatic Change, has been questioned by some American researchers and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), the industry body for coal-seam gas companies.

smh

[Graeme]

Fossil fuels vs. renewables: the key argument that environmentalists are missing

Which of the following can we count on to act as a “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy economy?

•A. Oil
•B. Natural Gas
•C. Coal
•D. None of the above
The correct answer is: D. None of the above.


There is increasing evidence that no fossil fuel will continue to see its rate of production climb significantly in the decades ahead and so none of them is a viable “bridge fuel,” not natural gas, not oil, not coal. This means that global society must leap over fossil fuels and move directly to renewables as quickly as possible. In advanced economies this leap must be combined with a program of radical reductions in energy use, reductions which are achievable using known technologies and practices.

Okay, perhaps you are wondering about the data. Let’s discuss each fossil fuel separately:

energybulletin

[prajeshbhat]

Right now I am sitting in an air conditioned room. I have access to water, food ,electricity, transportation, internet, shopping malls 24 hours a day- 365 days a year. I really have no incentive to worry about bridge fuels.

[cephalotus]

"...The problem with solar, hydrogen, ethanol, and wind is that they take about as much fossil fuel to make these forms of energy as the energy it gives us. They do not displace much fossil fuel if any. There are exceptions, like sugar ethanol...."

???

EROEI

wind: 20:1 to 80:1
pv: 4:1 to 40:1
water power: 50:1 to 500:1

"easy oil": >100:1
deepwater oil: 5:1 to 10:1
tar sands: ~ 3:1
ethanol from biomass: 0,5(!):1 to 3:1

[GoIllini]

Right now I am sitting in an air conditioned room. I have access to water, food ,electricity, transportation, internet, shopping malls 24 hours a day- 365 days a year. I really have no incentive to worry about bridge fuels.

Sure, but what about five years from now?

My oil stocks pay me 5% dividends. Same with my nuclear utility and renewable-friendly utes.

You may be sitting in an air conditioned room, but your electric bill pays my dividends. So do your gas purchases. And while your prices have been going up and airlines' stocks have been going down, I've been collecting more money. So thanks for your complacency!

The reason you care about this stuff is that it can make you money. I'm not in the capitalist class of the world's financial decision makers, but I sit next to them and know how they think. They got there on accruals and on dividends and on looking 20 years out and seeing what the world would need and how much it could pay.

I think Natgas does a good job of buying us time. Importantly, it gives us the opportunity to build out an electricity-based transportation infrastructure now that we have PHEVs. Eventually, we will replace the natural gas plants with wind turbines and fission plants or (ideally) fusion and abstract the fuel source. Just as long as you can build a plant that runs off of X, Y, or Z in ten years and connect it to the grid, we'll be fine.

Remember, you don't really matter when it comes to building out infrastructure. The world's investors are what matters. And those of us who are smart and have accrued more money to ourselves over the past 6-7 years can see this coming.

[prajeshbhat]

My oil stocks pay me 5% dividends. Same with my nuclear utility and renewable-friendly utes.

You may be sitting in an air conditioned room, but your electric bill pays my dividends. So do your gas purchases. And while your prices have been going up and airlines' stocks have been going down, I've been collecting more money. So thanks for your complacency!

You think you are getting rich.
No. They are getting rich

[GoIllini]

That's the great thing about capitalism. My success is their success and theirs' is mine. Also I don't invest in tech stocks. My boss owns a Ferrari, too. Living in NYC, I just ride a Ducati (no car- I rent them when I need more than a motorcycle.) I also live well within my means and know that short of a nuclear war, next year is going to be better than this year.

You wanna know how those cars in your picture got paid for?

Dividends. Wisely invested dividend stocks. (OK, or operating income- essentially the same thing)

We're the capitalist class. We live well within our means, save money, and buy or build infrastructure. Every year gets better for us.

I want to see Bill Gates get richer. It means he's come up with something for boosting worker productivity. That means more exports, more electricity consumption, more money for my utilities, and more money to invest in renewables and the steps towards a lower-carbon economy.

I want to see the Sauds do well. Chances are, if they're getting rich, I'm getting a dividend hike. I get a lot more in dividends from oil stocks every month than I spend on gas.

Start living below your means, start investing, and watch your means go up every year. Stop getting into the negativity and envy and come join in our success!

[ralfy]

What Cepholatus wrote.

Also, capitalism requires increasing production and consumption of goods funded through increasing credit. More credit is created through financial speculation.

Eventually, the latter may lead to more paper wealth for a few but also higher food and oil prices for most. Unfortunately, resources do not scale up on the same level.

[Graeme]

Gas fracking will revolutionise the US economy

The revolution in the natural gas sector promises to fundamentally rewrite the US economy and strengthen its position in the world order, according to new analysis.

"Energy autonomy will eventually give the US a strong strategic and political advantage," said Stephanie Kretz, a strategist at private bank Lombard Odier.
The phenomenon behind this prediction is well known. In recent years fracking, the new technique of hydraulic fracturing, has turned the US natural gas sector on its head, as it has given access to vast resources of gas trapped in shale rock at a low cost.
An unprecedented surge in supply has followed. Last year, the US mainland increased its natural gas output by 7.3pc, following growth of 3pc in 2010, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank.



Last week, Barclays Capital analysts noted "something more ominous: forward margins for coal plants have now swung into negative territory for many plants in the eastern US".

That means a plant that tries to avoid the pain of weak spot markets by selling power forwards would end up locking in a future loss.

Little cause for cheer lies ahead for such operations. Due to the abundance of cheap natural gas, coal consumption for power generation by US utilities will fall 5pc in 2012, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
But while downward pressures on fuel prices are not welcome to energy producers, the implications for the wider US economy are rather more positive.
In the immediate future, an abundance of natural gas and inexpensive energy will support jobs, particularly in the chemicals and fertiliser industry which is sensitive to low gas prices, says Kretz.

It will also reduce the threat of inflation, as energy costs will be less likely to drive prices higher.

In the longer term, the implications of the revolution in natural gas look even more far-reaching.

By 2035, the US will be the world's second largest gas producer, with its output dwarfed only by Russia, according to the International Energy Agency.

telegraph

[Graeme]

Study Questions Natural Gas's Environmental Benefits

As U.S. lawmakers promote natural gas as a way to reduce air pollution, a scientific study published this week questions the benefits of the fuel when used to power vehicles and generate electricity.

The study authors said methane leaks from the production and transportation of natural gas should be studied in greater detail before the U.S. adopts any major policy shifts.

The study, co-written by scientists at several universities and the environmental group Environmental Defense Fund, wades into an increasingly murky area of energy research. In it, scientists said the production of natural gas results in methane leaking into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change and limits the environmental benefits of natural gas. Methane, the primary component in natural gas, is more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas but decomposes more quickly in the atmosphere.

The research comes at a time when President Obama and other U.S. lawmakers are hailing natural gas as a fuel of the future, capable of replacing coal in power plants and gasoline in cars. That is because it is thought to be better for the environment and is produced in abundance in the U.S.

A boom in natural-gas production, made possible by recent advances in drilling technology, has driven down prices to about $2 per million British thermal units. At the same time, however, the Obama administration is developing stringent new rules for power plants that are likely to force some owners to abandon coal in favor of cleaner-burning natural gas.

The authors of the study, published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences," said natural gas appears to be more environmentally friendly than coal for generating electricity, even when accounting for methane leaks. But when natural gas is used as a fuel for cars and heavy-duty trucks, its benefits are questionable because of the rate at which methane leaks in the so-called well-to-wheel cycle.

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated 2.4% of methane in natural gas leaks into the atmosphere.

"What policy makers need to do is demand that they have the information to form an informed decision," said EDF Chief Scientist Steven Hamburg. "At this point in time, we don't have enough data to say whether [natural gas] is better for the environment."

wsj

[Graeme]

Must-Read Caldeira: ‘The Only Ethical Path Is To Stop Using The Atmosphere As A Waste Dump For Greenhouse Gas Pollution’

Last week, I discussed a new paper on methane leakage, to argue that “Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent A Carbon Price AND Strong Standards To Reduce Methane Leakage.” Last month, I wrote about a paper by climatologist Ken Caldeira and tech guru Nathan Myhrvold that came to a stronger conclusion: You Can’t Slow Projected Warming With Gas, You Need ‘Rapid and Massive Deployment’ of Zero-Carbon Power. I asked Caldeira to comment on the new paper. He slammed those who support a “fundamentally immoral” policy of delivering a hothouse climate to future generations, especially since avoiding the worst outcomes requires means redirecting at most 2% of our wealth. He expressed his views with a bluntness that is becoming increasingly common among climate scientists – JR.

Myhrvold and Caldeira (2012) presented a method for estimating climate consequences of energy system transitions. We used every Life Cycle Assessment study that we could get our hands on that provided the necessary level of detail. We also, in the Supporting Online Material that accompanied our paper, considered many cases with technological improvement. Our goal was to present a simple analytic framework that others could use to analyze energy system transitions in a physically defensible framework using numbers of their choosing. [See figure below.]

Many decades may pass before a transition from coal-based electricity to alternative generation technologies yields substantial temperature benefits. Panels above show the temperature increases predicted to occur during a 40-yr transition of 1 TWe of generating capacity. Warming resulting from continued coal use with no alternative technology sets an upper bound (solid black lines), and the temperature increase predicted to occur even if coal were replaced by idealized conservation with zero CO2 emissions (dashed lines) represents a lower bound. The colored bands represent the range of warming outcomes spanned by high and low life-cycle estimates for the energy technologies illustrated: (A) natural gas, (B) coal with carbon capture and storage, (C) hydroelectric, (D) solar thermal, (E) nuclear, (F) solar photovoltaic and (G) wind.

Every CO2 molecule is the same to the atmosphere. The atmosphere doesn’t care whether that CO2 molecule came from coal or natural gas.
We are converting the climate of our planet to one that is similar to the hothouse climates that existed on this planet when dinosaurs were the top predators. To a first approximation, if we emit greenhouse gases half as rapidly as we do today, we will wind up in the same place but it will take us twice as long to get there.
Economists estimate that it might cost something like 2% of our GDP to convert our energy system into one that does not use the atmosphere as a waste dump. When we burn fossil fuels and release the CO2 into the atmosphere, we are saying “I am willing to impose tremendous climate risk on future generations living throughout the world, so that I personally can be 2% richer today.” I believe this to be fundamentally immoral. We are saying we want to selfishly reap benefits today while imposing costs on strangers tomorrow.

The only ethical path is to stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gas pollution.

thinkprogress