Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 8, 2014
A Bridge Made of Natural Gas Is a Shaky Thing
When will we start to manage our natural gas resources?
For the last half century, domestic natural gas policy has looked something like this: Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. It is versatile and economical. So, let’s pull it out of the ground and use it as fast as we can. In the last decade, the policy has been appended to include the notion of natural gas as a bridge fuel – in some situations, it emits half as much greenhouse gas as does coal, so let’s use gas as a lower-carbon fuel that can tide us over until we find a better way.
This is proving to be a risky strategy. Companies across the country keep building more and more power plants that rely on natural gas, while gas producers want to increase export capacity to take advantage of foreign markets. These are infrastructure investments that are designed to pay off over decades, spanning years during which we must drastically reduce reliance on all fossil fuels – gas included – if we have any hope of meeting long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets. Meanwhile, the greenhouse gas implications of using natural gas cover the entire life cycle of gas extraction and use – not just what gets emitted at the smokestack. Methane leaks at the wellhead and along the pipelines release potent greenhouse gases in quantities that are not easily measured but certainly reduce the potential climate benefits from switching to natural gas. Liquefying and transporting gas for exports also emits additional greenhouse gas.
In the meanwhile, increased reliance on natural gas threatens domestic energy budgets and undermines grid reliability. In the face of cheap hydro-fracked natural gas, electricity generators have increased reliance on the fuel. Yet, this winter, gas prices have almost doubled, dragging electricity charges along with them. Over the last few days, the effect on electricity prices has been much more dramatic in eastern states that have competitive power markets, as they continue to struggle with harsh winter weather. This has put a temporary strain on flowing gas supplies and power purchase prices have hit the panic level. Power that normally might demand $35-50 per megawatt hour has sold at times for over $1,000.
Even in temperate California, the stability of the grid has been threatened. With more pipeline gas needed in the east, flowing supplies to California have been limited. Yesterday, the state’s grid operators issued a flex alert, asking customers to limit their use of discretionary lighting and appliances so that the inability to rely fully on gas-fired power plants would not lead to a grid-crashing imbalance between the supply of electricity and the demand.
To mix a metaphor, it is hard to build a stable bridge when you have too many of your eggs in one basket. Just as smart farmers know that it is risky to rely on a monoculture, so do smart grid operators. What energy policy makers could do is acknowledge, for the first time, that natural gas is a finite resource that must be strategically managed. They could plan for an expanded mix of renewable fuels, demand management, and energy storage. Or they could stay on the current trajectory of making new gas infrastructure investments and deal with the consequences later.
12 Comments on "A Bridge Made of Natural Gas Is a Shaky Thing"
paulo1 on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 2:16 pm
re: “Even in temperate California, the stability of the grid has been threatened. With more pipeline gas needed in the east, flowing supplies to California have been limited. Yesterday, the state’s grid operators issued a flex alert, asking customers to limit their use of discretionary lighting and appliances so that the inability to rely fully on gas-fired power plants would not lead to a grid-crashing imbalance between the supply of electricity and the demand.”
Shoot, you could just buy the excess electricity from BC Hydro, although you have to promise, really promise not to sue them when it comes time to pay the higher bills. Of course our resevoirs are low due to the same blocking high and cold weather. Our rivers are low and there is not much snowpack for excess generation.
Oh well, might as well frack more gas and export it so someone can make some money. Those politicians have campaigns to run!!
Paulo
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 3:37 pm
The US natural gas time bomb created by the corrupt and manipulated MSM, politicians, and Wall street. It will end up distorting the markets in just a few years leave our national grid unstable and many homes cold.
rollin on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 5:19 pm
That’s right Davy, the coal trucks will be delivering to home coal bins again as the rate of gas production keeps lagging demand.
I guess those passive solar houses were a good idea after all.
rockman on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 6:06 pm
A “bridge” to the future? The article seems to imply that we’re developing a new energy source to aid our demand. In reality NG has provided more energy to this country than all the liquids combined for about 15 years. Today NG provides 40% more energy than the liquids. In fact, until recently, coal has provided more energy than the liquids and has done so for the last 30 years. Coal has been providing a “bridge” since 1985.
The US has been a dominant consumer of NG from the beginning of the hydrocarbon age. It’s only been in the last 30 or so years that Russia has significantly increased NG consumption. Today Russia and the US consume about half the NG on the planet.
We crossed that “bridge” a very long time ago. It was a dang good bridge half a century ago and still is today.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 8:44 pm
Damn, rockman! I love it when you bring the hammer down on an uninformed conversation.
rockman on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 11:40 pm
NR – With the power of the net at everyone’s finger tips it pretty easy to grasp the big picture. One didn’t need to be an old geologist to catch the obvious. My 13 yo daughter could have made the same post. Which only pisses me off even more seeing what a lousy job the MSM and politicians explaining the energy situation. They don’t even do a very good job of “first do no harm”.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 8th Feb 2014 11:57 pm
Rock, agreed, “BUT” I am protesting the expectations of the “Plenty lobby” that are trying to do everything possible to increase demand for natural gas. This lobbying effort is full of bogus claims and unfulfillable promises. We are going to mothball some good infrastructure in the name of going “gas”. My point is gas is so important for a backup to renewables, petrochemicals, fertilizers, heating homes, and some transport situations. It is not capable of doing all that is being proposed by the “Plenty Lobby”. We are heading for a situation where we will drive a conversion then not have the product to deliver on the promises. This at the same time we shut out the traditional sources mainly coal and nuke. All of you that want an end to these two dangerous (nuke and coal) energies I say sure but it better be done in a rational realistic way or we will wake up one day with an unstable grid. Then good luck building all those renewables, good luck with the gas pipeline compressors, good luck with the stripper wells pumping, and on and on. You are right about gas Rock I am just saying lets be careful about this gas revolution.
rockman on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 1:02 am
Davy – Well said.
Nony on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 1:27 am
There’s a lot of gas (and it’s cheap, just a pain to transport). Lot of coal. Lot of uranium.
Oil…we are really running out of it. Or well, the long term price is high (70s). running out of cheap stuff and starting to exploiting high cost shale, sands, etc.
Natural outcome will be more and more substitution. Oil reserved for the higher value uses, with less ability to substitute. E.g. you can convert heating to gas (over time) pretty easily. Than electrical production, then large surface transport, then small surface transport. Usage kept for the longest time for certain feedstocks and for aviation.
Gas isn’t a bridge. It’s more of an end state.
And there’s a hell of a lot of gas. Always has been. Peak gas was especially silly. We can frack the heck out of the Marcellus, open NY, frack England, liquefy and ship it, etc.
How you will know we are really leaving crude and heading to gas is when the investments are made in distribution (pipelines, LNG, etc.) If anything, the hesitation to invest in them is NOT because people thing gas is running out, but because it is all over the world and/or people think the wolf of PO is still a few years further away.
GregT on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 4:21 pm
“Natural outcome will be more and more substitution. ”
Natural outcome? More like suicidal human outcome. The natural outcome will be further ocean acidification, glacial melt, flooding, drought, forest fires, species and ecosystems loss, and a massive population cull.
Natural gas IS a bridge for sure, a bridge to global mass extinction.
Nony on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 4:42 pm
There is enough coal and natural gas left to add huge amounts of CO2 to the air.
The peak oil movement (POM, ;), always had an element of wishcasting.* People who though the fuels would run out because they WANTED them to run out. But it’s really more reasonable to make the environmental argument itself, on its own merits, rather than Simmons/Campbell “desert-dives” and “gas cliff”s.
*when people predict a Democrat/Republican will win because they want a Democrat/Republican to win. (same thing with fans of football teams, etc.) That is why prediction markets for elections, Vegas lines for ball games, etc. are superior. It’s not that they can predict the future…but that the $$$ makes things unbiased.
Fulton J. Waterloo on Sun, 9th Feb 2014 10:13 pm
Wait until every school bus in America switches over to natural gas. There will be a LOT of cold homes then…