I caught this comprehensive but succinct item at the NYT recently: Time to Tap the Bounty of U.S. Natural Gas. It lays out the fact of the astonishing ballooning of new, proven shale gas reserves – more than the proven oil resources of Iran. The prices have gone low and stayed low and, according to all reports, are going to stay low. But we’re not using this resource to nearly the extent we could be using it. We could be accelerating the transition from coal to gas for electrical power generation and, as electric vehicles and charging points come on line, using that juice to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil. We could also be using that gas to make hydrogen for fuel cells for stationary and mobile purposes, not to mention using it directly in vehicles. Using natural gas instead of coal cuts the greenhouse gas output of power plants in half: a consummation devoutly to be wished. Using natural gas instead of oil could radically decrease our oil consumption, shaving scores of billions a year on our trade deficit. Read the article.
The FT’s “Energy Source” blog cites a recent BP report saying that gas is going to displace coal across the OECD. From the tea leaves I’ve been reading and what I’ve been hearing, this process is already well underway in the US.
The opposing view on the efficacy of using the abundant supplies of natural gas we have in the US – and not incidentally in Europe, China and South America – is that the fuel will be burned in addition to coal, not as a substitute, and that the use of gas will block the development of renewables, not serve as a bridge to the zero-carbon, technology-driven energy economy that many of us envision – and which I can almost taste. SolveClimate reports here on a new analysis from Britain’s prestigious Tyndall° Centre for Climate Change Research. The lead researcher, Kevin Anderson, says “In the absence of any strong carbon dioxide cap at a global level, all that will happen is that shale gas will be burned in addition to coal — not as a substitute.”
No less a worthy than Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, agrees to a certain extent with Anderson’s analysis. As GigaOm reports here, Birol says “This might be the golden age for natural gas. Natural gas might penetrate the market at a higher rate than any of us has anticipated. If natural gas market continues to follow its path, then life for renewable energy may be tougher than we think.”
GigaOm further reports here that no less a pair of renowned energy and environmental activists than Carl Pope of the Sierra Club and Dan Reicher of Stanford think that the dialogue on natural gas and renewables has to be greatly expanded.
Kevin Anderson was present at the premiere in Britain of “Gasland,” a documentary about the dangers in the hydraulic fracturing of shale – or fracking – to get at the gas deposits. (The FT’s Kiran Stacey reviews it – unfavorably – here.)
I’ve written about the issue of fracking here and here. Fracking clearly presents dangers. The question is whether environmental watchdogs, at the agencies and among the NGOs, can require all operations to eliminate the threats to water supplies, air quality, etc. I think they can. The stakes are too high to not have all the environmental and public health protections fully in place. Frankly, this is one more argument to me for the gas drillers to take these concerns deadly seriously. It is in their own best interests to do everything by the numbers. That may not be the mentality of oil and gas folks, but they really ought to start to get it. Hardball players like Ceres are looking very, very closely at their operations and there’s a lot of money behind the investors at Ceres and other similar groups.
