US on verge of energy independence?
A paradigm shifter?A few weeks ago I asked, Would natural gas vehicles make sense?
According to an interesting Telegraph piece regarding last week's World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires, the answer is, yes.
Because the technologies for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have evolved much faster than anyone was anticipating, the US - and its large natural gas supplies - is expected to reap huge rewards, while Europe should become less dependent upon Russia.
Consequently, writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard claims "we may soon be looking at an era when gas, wind and solar power, combined with a smarter grid and a switch to electric cars returns the country to near energy self-sufficiency."
Labels: energy independence, natural gas
posted by Dahcredyns at
12:38 PM
32 Comments:
This is excellent news. I also bet you that T. Boon Pickens is also having a good day
As an old farm boy from Minnesota I can attest to just how clean compressed gas burns. We had our tractors on 100 hour maintenance intervals until we shifted to compressed gas. After that we doubled the maintenance intervals and the motor oil still looked clean when it was changed.
I hope we can get our heavy truck fleet on natural gas as quickly as possible. Oh and by the way, I just checked the price of compressed natural gas at a few locations in the U.S.
California about $1.40-2.30
Vegas = 2.09
Utah = .95 cents ! !
Denver = 2.00
Minneapolis = $2.69
Is it any wonder trucking fleets are pushing so hard for natural gas.
I wonder - which would be better for cars - electricity or natural gas? How about pickup trucks? Oh boy here we go again, another subject with 35 comments LOL
Tom G.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel and a greenhouse gas polluter. We need to move away from fossil fuels and move rapidly towards a nuclear and renewable energy economy.
It would be nice to see the US as a major supplier, not just a major consumer.
I still am not seeing much progress in the area CNG infrastructure or personal CNG vehicles however. It's great that we can harvest the fuel more easily, but we must have vehicles to put the CNG into, and CNG filling stations to supply the fuel.
Perhaps we'll see more CNG at truck stops throughout the country, helping to fuel growth in the trucking industry......
I agree Smurf.
Let's tuck some CNG tanks under the bellies of 18 wheelers and start getting them converted. If we take some of the pressure off the cost of diesel fuel then maybe it will become cheaper for our farmers.
When I went looking at natural gas prices online there were many places in the U.S. without CNG service. The infrastructure seems pretty skimpy now.
It is also true what Mr. Williams said about it being a fossil fuel and it will never be anything more than a short term solution. Short term being what; maybe 50 years?
Tom G.
don't we have pipelines to virtually every urbanized area in the country?
I would think that a CNG Hybrid would be a killer app....if CNG was plentiful..
it could actually result in less oil importing...
It IS a fossil fuel but it is much, much cleaner.
Home Depot and Lowes both use CNG forklifts while customers are in the stores. You could never do that with gasoline fueled forklifts.
to wit:
Reduces carbon monoxide emissions 90%-97%
Reduces carbon dioxide emissions 25%
Reduces nitrogen oxide emissions 35%-60%
Potentially reduces non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50%-75%
Emits fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants
Emits little or no particulate matter
Eliminates evaporative emissions
CNG is used in more and more buses in urbanized areas also.
Finally, CNG is used to produce electricity...
propane (LNG) is twice as energy dense than CNG.
and there are propane vehicles also
just discovered that Toyota makes forklifts in both CNG/LNG versions...
I'm betting that Toyota is all over this.
If you could run your hybrid on barbecue grill tanks... easy to change... two on board.. you get another one when the first one goes empty...
you could buy them anywhere...
what are the downsides?
For the life of me I can't remember where I read this but it seems to me that Nissan, Toyota and others are already selling lots of cars that use CNG in other countries.
I really dislike getting old.
Tom G.
yes.. Tom.. took 4 google searches for me to dredge back up what we call a 'forklift'.
I'm looking at LPG which is only 14% less energy dense than gasoline - which means that with a little physical size configuration tweaking - the LPG car could replace conventional cars that drive in both urban and rural locales.
Didn't fine exactly what I was looking for but here is some additional information regarding how popular CNG vehicles are in other countries from Wiki.
"Worldwide, there are more than 7 million NGVs on the roads as of 2008[update],[8] with the largest number of NGVs in Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, India, China, Thailand, and Iran,[9][10] with South America leading with a global market share of 48%.[11]
CNG cars available in Europe are bi-fuel vehicles burning one fuel at a time. Their engine is a standard gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE). This means that they can indifferently run on either gasoline from a gasoline tank or CNG from a separate cylinder in the trunk. The driver can select what fuel to burn by simply flipping a switch on the dashboard."
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas#CNG_cars
Tom G.
this is the part that caught my eye:
" One recent study by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting group, calculated that the recoverable shale gas outside of North America could turn out to be equivalent to 211 years’ worth of natural gas consumption in the United States at the present level of demand, and maybe as much as 690 years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/energy-environment/10gas.html
I would think that 200 years.. or even 100 years if we double our usage of CNG would help "bridge" us to breakthroughs in solar panel technology.
In fact, if the solar panel technology gets to what 15-17% efficiency, at least onsite.. it start to compete with fossil fuels?
I'd not be surprised at all to see more major game-changing innovations in the next five years.
it's also becoming much more clear why the auto companies and others are not focusing on one path.. it's a much too volatile and dynamically changing environment where choosing a path could result in massive invests in a technology that gets preempted by another.
used to be - the US pretty much defined innovation and investment - in changing technologies but it looks like we've pulled back and are waiting for other countries to plow ahead.
Most of the eagerness to tap into new natural gas overlooks drinking water contamination. It is not clean energy, merely a lesser evil on the surface and possibly a greater evil when compared to a real effort for renewable energy. Comparing natural gas addiction to oil addiction on this blog is like comparing bacteria to viruses on a medical site for clean health. We're shooting for good health, not just less bad.
while marcel makes a solid point, i'm with the rest in supporting natural gas as a bridge fuel.
it could have a huge impact on america's energy paradigm almost instantly. in fact, in the past we've had some from argentina discuss how many there buy gasoline cars there and then have them converted to natural gas/gasoline vehicles for about $1000.00.
so it's not just about large vehicles. and aside from conversions, automakers know how to make these vehicles, even in hybrid version.
and as plug-in vehicles take hold, natural gas can be used to provide base load energy when solar and wind power isn't available.
plus, if you have natural gas, you also have hydrogen and the ability to support fuel cells.
obviously, natural gas isn't a perfect solution, but it can begin reducing foreign oil dependence and co2 emissions immediately, while creating jobs.
considering its going to take several decades to roll out nothing but renewably powered vehicles or to build the support for nuclear-powered syngas vehicles, i don't know how not taking advantage of natural gas can be justified.
kp-
the research could be skewed, but according to what i've read, most of the water issue has been resolved by new horizontal drilling and capture techniques that have only been developed in the last couple of years.
if true, then your assumptions are being driven by antiquated data.
also, natural gas could fit well with the drive to plug-ins and renewable energy. otherwise, in the interim, we'll be left with coal power.
that's so much cleaner? not according to the sierra club, for instance.
moreover, so let's skip this development, then we're stuck with foreign petroleum and dirty coal for at least several more decades.
so a significant decrease in foreign oil dependence, CO2 reductions, a clean environment compared to coal and a massive affect on the future's trading of energy prices isn't worth it because it's not a big enough leap ahead?
that's like continuing to eat mcdonalds every day while waiting for a perfect cure for your stomach cancer.
Natural gas is the methadone of oil addiction. Substituting a controlled drug for and uncontrolled drug only leaves an addiction and changes the seller.
The problem is fossil fuel consumption and pollution. Natural gas is just riding along the shoulder of the traffic jam of peak oil. We need to pull off the road realizing that the jam's not going to clear-up.
so what's the alternative KP?
solar panels, evs and a new super, smart grid?
how many trillions is that going to take? how long is that going to take? how much political support is there for such a movement if it means higher taxes?
so, is it nuclear then? how many nuclear plants has the US built in the last decade? have the politics around nuclear really changed much?
moreover, no one is calling natural gas a replacement to foreign oil. for instance, converting 20 percent of US oil consumption to natural gas consumption would have a massive impact on the energy markets, while creating huge job growth in the US.
that makes everything americans buy cheaper, and that might make Americans more open to further tax expenditures for renewable projects, etc..
furthermore, according to groups like the Sierra Club, using natural gas to provide base load energy - something solar and wind CANNOT do today - is better for the environment than coal. therefore, natural gas is a better partner for the renewable energy industry than coal.
one way or another, either coal or natural gas is going to be a big part of the energy paradigm for decades even as more and more renewable energy comes on line.
or until we have a massive uptick in nuclear power production, but the political support for such a nuclear future doesn't exist.
so a positive step forward isn't worth taking because it's not a big enough step?
granted, if the science behind these new drilling technologies has been over sold, then you have an argument. however, if i'm not mistaken, the sierra club's research and support of natural gas over coal was developed before this research came out, which would mean these new techniques have made natural gas even cleaner.
There are lots of wonderful comments here and a big diversity of recommended solutions on what must be one of the best blog sites on the net. Our moderator keeps the site clean and junk free and doesn't criticize, condemn or complain when we get slightly off subject. What a guy ( :-)
The other thing I like about this site is that almost everyone has a different point of view while at the same time still providing some type of recommendation or alternative for improvement. We have very few complainers who just complain without offering some type of alternative or solution.
Of course if you are a frequent poster here you already know that I am a big supporter of the solar option as are many others. I frequently reference a Scientific American article called 'A Solar Grand Plan' [Google search] since it is a very good primer on how the solar option might work for our country. Of course it is not the complete solution but just one type of renewable energy source that we are currently using. Scientific American continues to host the article and the 711 reader comments even though the article was written in late 2007 and is somewhat dated.
Some of you might also know that we are well on our way to implementing at least some portions of the Solar Grand Plan. The Federal government has opened large areas of federal lands in the desert southwest for solar development. It might also be refreshing to know that we are actually building some of those proposed solar plants in spite of opposition from some groups. There are of course some groups who will fight almost any project just for the fun of the fight but I am sure you already knew that. I sure wished we could find some of these individuals a real job LOL.
But we have a long way to go. One of the problems is the current economic conditions in the U.S. and the world as a whole. Even though we are printing buckets and buckets of money it seems that very little of that money is getting into the hands of the capitalist money stream. Hence the financing of solar projects is going very slowly. There are of course several reasons for this but here are just a couple.
Solar efficiencies are improving daily. Not too long ago 8% conversion was considered good. Then 12% seemed like a breakthrough. Today we consistently pass 14%. So the longer we wait the fewer panels we will need for the same number of Kilowatt [KW] hours of power right?. Also the permitting process is still too slow even though we have seen some permits issued in just a few months we need to move much faster if we are ever going to be successful. It's somewhat like the early nuclear power industry in some respects except with fewer people objecting to the projects. What we need is the same thing the nuclear industry has which are 'standardized designs'. This would go a long way to speeding up the permitting process. Another reason might be our continued belief that everyone has a right to be heard during the permitting process. I am not so sure that hearing the same people comment over and over again on every project about the 'vast amounts' of water needed for a Photovoltaic [PV] solar plant are worthwhile when PV plants use almost no water.
Now if you were talking about a Concentrating Solar Power [CSP] plant that comment may be appropriate if it is located in an area with very limited water resources and was not using air cooled condensers. Let us never forget that we are not "using or burning up water" like we burn up coal or natural gas. We are only changing it's state from a liquid to a vapor. It comes right back to us in the form of a liquid as rain someplace else on our planet.
This post is getting long so in my next post I will focus on how to pay for the solar option.
Thank you all for listening.
And Dahcredyns the answer to your cost question is $1.3 trillion over 10 years for solar.
Tom G.
The hang-up with most alternative energy is centralization. "The box" is that it has to be this invisible service that is centrally controlled and plugs in with no effort to adjust our current way of life. Expanding the grid to deliver our current energy requirements with clean alternatives is indicative of being down this road.
Thinking outside the box is distributed collection of energy, avoiding the costs of much of the grid infrastructure. Localized solutions depend on the most available clean energy of your region. The common technology aspects that can be attacked with this mode of thinking are batteries, affordable family-size collection devices (panels, windmills, ...) and municipal projects (super-sets of the family-size devices).
If the auto industry thought the way the home-computer industry did in terms of electric cars, there would be generic components (chassis, motor, storage, transmission, etc.) that could be used for local assembly and distribution. Why do we wait with bated breath for an answer from the Big-3 et al? We're thinking at the wrong level.
tom -
that's the estimated solar production costs?
i'm assuming that doesn't include the grid and storage costs necessary to move and store this energy?
kp-
i'm pretty much with on your "centralized" comments, however, are e waiting for the big 3, or even the auto industry? isn't the auto industry, in general, just building what they think they can derive a profit from?
in europe US automakers make smaller cars because energy prices demand it if you want to sell any vehicles.
while automakers certainly are partially culpable, it seems to me its about energy costs and, therefore, energy policy that is most critical.
well... ... clean-ER... half-loaf...bridge technology to optimal/sustainable outcome..
baby-steps and all that rot..
yes.. I have heard also that water will be needed - would like to know more about that.
but I've also heard that solar furnace sites will need quantities of water also.. anyone know about that?
larry-
i think it's mostly a groundwater contamination issue. supposedly, however, innovations in drilling technology resolve most of that issue.
unfortunately, the technology is quite new, so it probably hasn't been fully studied by critics. however, sierra club embraces it as a green solution as compared to coal.
if true, i think its a great bridge. natural gas can power both conventional vehicles - most importantly, large trucks, etc. - while also providing electricity for plug-in vehicles that is much cleaner than coal.
that provides a few decades to roll out plug-ins, renewable power generation, etc. while having a huge impact on foreign oil dependency, energy pricing, and jobs in the interim.
likewise if you could significantly lower fuel costs, whether natural gas or petroleum via nat gas competition, then it would be easier to increase fuel taxes to pay for renewable projects, etc. in fact, i'd bet such a plan could sync well with a good cap and trade program.
" then it would be easier to increase fuel taxes to pay for renewable projects"
I like the way you think.. ;-)
Will the use of NG bend the GHG curve downward enough?
25 - 50 percent depending upon whom you ask.
Larry G I can't give you a specific number for the gallons of water used by a CSP plant but here is a Wiki article discussing some of the considerations. However I would think that the amount of water would be about the same as any other plant of equal size. Turbine generator sets don't really care what makes the steam its still just steam LOL.
After the pasted quote I have added my own personal thoughts on PV panel cleaning.
Wiki quote: "A design which requires water for condensation or cooling may conflict with location of solar thermal plants in desert areas with good solar radiation but limited water resources. The conflict is illustrated by plans of Solar Millennium, a German company, to build a plant in the Amargosa Valley of Nevada which would require 20% of the water available in the area. Some other projected plants by the same and other companies in the Mojave Desert of California may also be affected by difficulty in obtaining adequate and appropriate water rights. California water law currently prohibits use of potable water for cooling.[64] Other designs require less water. The proposed Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in south-eastern California will conserve scarce desert water by using air-cooling to convert the steam back into water. Compared to conventional wet-cooling, this results in a 90 percent reduction in water usage . The water is then returned to the boiler in a closed process which is environmentally-friendly." end of quote
Tom G. comments.
Florida Power and Light just put a Photovoltaic [PV] plant on line with 90,000 PV panels. If one assumes [love that word] that about 1 cup of water is used to clean each panel [an area of about 20 ft sq.] then about 720,000 oz. or about 5,600 gallons would be required for each cleaning. Depending on the location of the panels that could be once a month or only twice a year.
I just checked my home water bill and we used 7,308 gallons for the month of September. In theory at least, the cleaning of 90,000 PV panels does not seem to take a whole bunch of water.
Tom G.
And for kpdriscoll; distributed generation will be, and is important and is discussed in the Solar Grand Plan. Makes interesting reading if you have about 10 minutes to spare.
This is part 2 of 2 I promised about the Solar Grand Plan.
In my first post about the Solar Grand Plan I talked about solar panel efficiencies, the permitting process and a few of the differences between some of the designs. Now we get down to the tough part – how do we pay for this. Well if you haven't taken the time to read the article here is at least part of the answer from the Solar Grand Plan itself.
Quote: “Our model is not an austerity plan, because it includes a 1 percent annual increase in demand, which would sustain lifestyles similar to those today with expected efficiency improvements in energy generation and use. Perhaps the biggest question is how to pay for a $420-billion overhaul of the nation’s energy infrastructure. One of the most common ideas is a carbon tax. The International Energy Agency suggests that a carbon tax of $40 to $90 per ton of coal will be required to induce electricity generators to adopt carbon capture and storage systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This tax is equivalent to raising the price of electricity by one to two cents per kWh. But our plan is less expensive. The $420 billion could be generated with a carbon tax of 0.5 cent per kWh. Given that electricity today generally sells for six to 10 cents per kWh, adding 0.5 cent per kWh seems reasonable.
Tom G. interjects at this point. What the Solar Grand Plan is asking us to do is suffer through is an increase in our electric rates of 1/2 cent per KW to pay for the plan. Now I can only speak for myself since every individuals electric bill is different but if this plan were implemented today it would cost me $5.38 a month. That's probably less than the cost of a 6 pack of chilled beverage in most locations. Now lets see what would happen if Cap and Trade were to pass and my electric bill was increased by a very conservative figure of 20%. Since I am on a level pay plan of $123 per month my increase would be $24.60 per month. However, lets get back to paying for the Solar Grand Plan.
“The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan.” end of quote.
In the above paragraph we see just another reason for why we need a clean source of energy. “ONE THAT CAN FUEL TRANSPORTATION AS WELL.” If you don't like the 1/2 cent per KW then maybe you might be inclined to increase the cost of gasoline by implementing a phased in gasoline tax. Raising the gasoline tax $.25 cents per gallon per year in a phased in manner over a 4 year period of time would raise $134 billion dollars EVERY year to fund renewable energy. In less than 5 years we could have the full $420 billion required to implement the plan. Cap and Trade on the other hand will raise the cost of EVERY product that uses energy to be produce. Home heating oil, food, medications, air conditioners, gasoline, electricity and the list goes on and on. The Solar Grand Plan said we needed only needed $420 billion between now and 2050 to become energy independent and to significantly reduce our carbon output. I don't have an answer for this question – do you think we can wait until 2050 for the Cap and Trade program to achieve carbon reduction? Do we really have 40 years of time left?
Tom G.
this is good stuff! I would still think that for any contemplative increase in the cost of electricity - that we do it in tandem with options for the people affected to reduce their use thus giving them the option to make the impact to them - revenue neutral.
This is essentially the same dynamic in play for instance with cars when gasoline gets expensive - they start to look at ways to mitigate the impacts and many will drive less, use transit, get a more fuel-efficient vehicle, etc.
Electricity is so fundamental to people that if they feel like their monthly expenses are going to go up beyond which they can offset it then it's going to generate opposition.
I'm skeptical of some of the minimal carbon tax estimates I see flying around...
and I'll be really honest - there are those folks "out there" in opposition who will take the initiative and DEFINE the ISSUE as grotesquely expensive if the folk supporting change stumble ....or dither about facts or worse promote a number that is demonstrably wrong.
I think if nothing else, in the last year, we have seen just how potent opposition to change can be and if you think health care was/is tumultuous .. just wait till you suggest increasing virtually every person home expenses by .. oh say.. $4000 a year...
bogus number? likely. but if those who support change put a low-ball number out there then the 4K number is going to stay in the debate if the lower number is also shown to be "too low" ...
so if if nothing else is done right except the numbers are not low balled - you still have a chance to move it forward...
it would be almost better to give a worst case number - along with clear and practical ways to respond such that the impact is close to neutral.
so I favor using a worst case number and package the proposals with smart meters and even incentivize less than average use by funding it with penalties for higher than average use.
or upfront loans to install tankless water heaters that more than offset the loan payback.
remember.. I said you have to give folks the OPTION to reduce their costs such that it becomes THEIR CHOICE if they choose to not to.
sorta like people CHOOSING to get a 15mpg SUV even though they know they could have got a 33 mpg vehicle.
my two cents worth...
forgot to mention - the benefit of decoupling rates - is that the power provider is essentially guaranteed a certain profit level - even if overall use drops.
If you don't do this, the power company has no incentives to encourage conservation because the better they get at it - the less money they make.
It is, bad news - good news. It is good, because we have a lot of time to develop new technologies! Additionally, US as well as many other countries don't need that much oil. The bad news is that now we have fewer incentives to develop these technologies. Higher price of shale gas might be some consolation.
Regardless, some experts believe shale gas to be a next bubble.
Don't count your chickens on a 10-year supply of natural gas when it could damage increasingly valuable drinking water for centuries.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/frack_attack.html
do you mean like we ought to stop the equivalent level of destruction by blasting off mountaintops and spewing mercury over the landscape to provide many of us with electricity?
Since coal provides us with 50% of our electricity, in theory, we could stop the environmental destruction if each one of us agreed to use 1/2 the electricity that we do right now.
good luck.
as much as I am with you and your heart on this issue - we have to be at least pragmatic enough to recognize that less bad - is an option even though it is still bad.
but from my point of view.. if the shale gas requires destruction of aquifers similar to what we've done to our mountain tops, then I'm on your side.
kp-
much of the latest research presented at last week's gas conference demonstrates that new drilling techniques have helped address that issue.
again, most of this news was not available to the general public until last week.
nonetheless, according to the sierra club, coal is even worse than petroleum for the environment, and natural gas is far better than both.
since the sierra club has regularly opposed aquifer protection permits for natural gas drillers to prevent brine water from contaminating drinking water aquifers, i can only assume they've addressed the water issue in their recommendation of natural gas over coal.
I can tell you that if the Sierra Club supports it - it's got to be better than what we have.
they are pretty darn strict - to the point where I think they are sometimes not realistic about what our options really are.
that news restores some of my faith in them being at the least pragmatic.
My personal favored groups for this is NRDC and Environmental Defense and Environmental Law Group.
If ALL of these groups agree about something - it counts for something in my book.
tom-
geez, i guess i need to move, because $6.00 doesn't buy a 6-pack where i live.
anyway, it is my understanding that an solar plan, unless completely local and distributed, requires a new super grid that al gore, for instance, has suggested would cost about $700 billion.
how does this $420 billion number fit into that?
likewise, there is an interesting issue brewing on the transportation side of this story: the massive loss of transportation revenue lost via less gasoline consumption.
between federal and state taxes we're talking tens of billions of dollars in potentially lost revenue.
between 1977 - 2004, state and fed governments collected $1.34 trillion from gas taxes according to the tax foundation.
Dahcredyns - you must drink a much better brand of beer than I do LOL
According to the article an expanded HVDC network would need to be added to the existing 500 miles we currently have starting in about 2011. Of course that assumes we had actually started the plan which of course we didn't.
So far I don't know of anyone in Congress who is pushing the plan. There are of course several reasons why but the primary reason seems to be cheap coal. When will cheap coal no longer be cheap? I predict right after we add the requirement for carbon capture and sequestration.
Tom G.
Post a Comment
<< Home