Seems to me we did just fine.

Now we're just going to export the coal so I don't think it's helping global emissions. Shale gas might have actually made sense as a transitional step if it was simply replacing coal, so that every gas pipeline built meant one coal mine shut down. But that's not even close to reality.

after which the natural gas industry voluntarily steps aside because practical, inexpensive storage for renewables has become a reality. In the name of the environment.

You're killin' me.

Like when you go to the movies.

That's what I meant.

Some people see natural gas as a transitional step to clean energy since it burns cleaner than coal or oil. Consensus with anti-fracking people (I'm one) is that shale gas is not being used as a transition to anything cleaner. It is just freeing up coal to be exported, reducing the sense of urgency, and slowing the transition to renewable energy. Also it seems like the fracking process releases a lot of methane.

Also tapping America's large shale gas reserves will strengthen the powerful, entrenched gas industry interest groups. And they aren't likely to just voluntarily step aside when the theoretical transition period is over, once renewables have matured with better battery storage and stuff.

I liked the article/opinion piece from the Times. It's quite right to question the conventional wisdom that we will continue to need fossil fuels for a long time. My opinion is we can end fossil fuels "right away" if we really mobilize our resources toward that goal. There are some technical problems surely. But the biggest obstacles are political, not technical. We all saw that study that said New York State can be 100% renewable By 2050. That study is also referenced in the op ed piece. Well ok but if New York unlocks their shale gas reserves they will be exporting their carbon and strengthening the gas industry. But mostly I think we agree.

That is a bonus, it isn't the reason it is considered a transitional technology.

The nature of a natgas turbine enables it to do something that coal or nuclear can't - come on line from a cold start quickly, and ramp up and down across a significant range quickly.

This has important economic implications. As renewables encroach on the market share held by coal and nuclear, they are forced to raise their prices on the service to the remaining market they have. This creates a spiral that puts pressure on them to survive as an economic entity. When you factor in the huge capital investment required for coal and nuclear, the only out they have is to oppose the technology that is closing them down. This resistance is why we are dragging our feet responding to climate change.

With natgas the scenario is different in 2 ways.

First, the initial investment is smaller per MW and the size of the facilities is generally far smaller than coal or nuclear. This means they can either pay their investors off quicker or if they are put out of business by renewables, then the amount written off is much easier for the investor to swallow on a case by case basis.

Second is the value added by their ability to work in tandem with renewables. Natural gas has been a part of the mix for quite a while because it fills an important niche - peaking power. It is some of the most expensive power that a utility will purchase because unlike baseload, the asset must pay for itself running as little sometimes as a couple of hundred hours per year.
With significant renewable penetration, the same sort of situation exists; natgas (like coal and nuclear) will see its market share decline as renewables increase. however, even though it isn't needed very often its operational characteristics complement the renewables and its escalating per hour cost becomes an acceptable business model that does not prompt the owners to fight against technologies that will cause the loss of their investment. It will, however, slow investment in natgas plant expansion.

As far as natural gas freeing up coal to be exported, I can only say that is a completely irrational objection. Yes, coal use is a global problem that requires a solution, but that doesn't negate in any way the fact that we can improve the part of the problem we have control over. It's like saying we shouldn't move away from petroleum to electric cars because our grid currently uses fossil fuels. If we wait until the moment when all aspects of the carbon problem are able to be solved in a single fell swoop, then it is glaringly obvious that the problem will NEVER be solved. I know that isn't what you want.

As far as the coal issue, the White House is currently considering tasking the EPA with drafting regulations that cause all Environmental Impact Assessments for fossil fuel export facilities to consider the wider impact of the product being shipped instead of just the local impact of the actual construction. I don't know if that is going to be the solution to exporting carbon or not, but it is an example of one way the problem might be handled.

Personally, I believe that any country building a strong carbon free infrastructure is making a contribution to solving the problem globally. When we built our present grid infrastructure, we didn't plan for it be the model globally, but it was. That's because it was the best, least cost option not only for us, but for the rest of the world as well. In the same way, as renewable manufacturing proliferates those technologies will come together to create a new global best, least cost option and fossil fuels will go the way of whale oil and water wheels.

Well you make a lot of good points but I still think fracking for shale gas is a bad idea. Consider the amount of money that has been invested in shale gas infrastructure over the last 10 years. Wish I knew how much it was, but I know it is a lot. I'm talking about industry investment in pipelines, wells, refining, etc. It's locking us into shale gas for a long time. It's tying up our local economies with this fossil fuel and creating new interest groups. Also possibly there are the methane emissions. Also we should weigh the cost of water pollution and damage to local water pipes caused by the shaking earth, which are costs that will be born by communities that already tend to be relatively impoverished.

I would rather have seen all those billions of dollars invested in other things. That could have been wind, solar and geothermal. It could be modernizing the electric grid, insulating buildings, investing in public transportation or electric cars. And also science stuff like research for awesome batteries and stuff like that. Shale gas seems like a distraction from all those more important things. I guess maybe you're right that given enough time the market forces would force coal and oil out of the market (or greatly reduce their market share), and eventually the same will happen for natgas. I'm concerned that we're up against a ticking clock with climate change so we need to act more quickly. How long is it going to take for market forces to end fossil fuels? 100 years? 200 years? Earth will be toast by then.

Also what if the industry comes up with some new techniques to make coal/oil/or gas more profitable? Like a new drilling technique. Or if they discover some new oil and gas fields in Africa and Asia where they can drill without any of the regulatory costs. We shouldn't wait for the market to work it's magic in this case.

Also industries don't simply step out of the way when they see their profitability declining. They look for ways to rig markets and buy governments so they can keep turning profits. They will literally start wars to stay profitable. I don't think the coal and oil industries are going away without a fight. Look at what the coal industry is doing. Using their influence over the government to make sure they can export. "The White House is currently considering tasking the EPA with drafting regulations"... Sorry I just don't have any confidence in that process. We shouldn't be exporting any coal. At this point in the global warming timeline we should start closing down some of our coal mines, not expanding their markets to the whole earth.

You're right, the fact that we export coal should not necessarily be an argument against natural gas. There can be a separate argument against exporting coal. But it is does show that the idea of shale gas as a "bridge fuel" is something of a hoax or a myth. It's a selling point that the industry and their partners in government can use to sell the idea of fracking to people who are concerned about climate. At some point, soon, we have to start leaving some coal and oil in the ground. At some point we have to gradually start saying "no" to accelerating fossil fuel extraction, right? At some point we have to start saying "no" to fossil fuel projects, even though the total global demand for energy is increasing. Maybe the test to see if shale gas is a bridge fuel, or whether that was just a marketing hoax, is whether it helps us say 'no' to new extreme coal and oil investments? So far it has not helped in that sense.

If we substitute shale gas for coal and then just export the coal to be burned elsewhere, we've actually increased fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions. So it does more harm than good. Every day there are gas wells and injection wells sprouting up in the countryside. We're making a long term commitment to shale gas. The marketing campaign for shale gas says it is a bridge to clean energy. But the people who design those marketing campaigns are just saying anything to get money.

You might be right about natgas turbines being able to come on line from a cold start quickly, and ramp up and down quickly. I don't know anything about that so it's interesting information. I'll have to look into it more. But what is the relative amount of investment going into shale fracking versus wind and solar? It seems like a lot more money is going into the fracking infrastructure because the shit is popping up everywhere, while wind and solar are coming kind of slow. My guess is that if we took a fraction of the money we are investing in fossil fuel extraction infrastructure and invested it in R&D to find a solution for that turbine starting issue you mentioned, maybe there would be an engineering solution, such as awesome batteries or something. Also why can't they use conventional natural gas instead of shale gas? Industry appears to be hell bent on extracting every last drop of fossil fuel from the earth regardless of the consequences. I think the reason is because they make money from it, not because they are trying to give us a bridge to a sustainable future. Also really I think reducing greenhouse gas emissions has really been touted by government and industry as the primary reason for accelerating shale gas drilling. Also they tout jobs and "energy independence". I certainly believe you when you say there is some technical reason for it, because the turbine can cold start. So in that case that is the only thing it should be used for, or they should use conventional natural gas instead of shale gas because the carbon footprint is less. Or I don't know maybe I could be wrong, it's been known to happen.

Shale Gas a Disaster for Climate

We are in complete agreement re paragraphs 1 and 2. I was initially ok with fracking because it hastens the shutdown of coal and by traditional measurements reduces CO2 emissions approximately 60% per watt generated. My view of how our energy system will transition predates fracking, so my general support for natgas as a transitional tool is unrelated to any efforts of the natgas industry to increase their market share. My support for fracking lasted until the evidence of methane leakage at the wellhead firmed up. Fracking isn't necessary for natural gas's transitional roll and the downside of the abundant supply is that it is, as you speculate, slowing investment in cleaner technologies.


Of course industries don't just step out of the way. They've been fighting tooth and nail against the transition to distributed renewable generation but the price points of wind and solar are now at a place where the handwriting is on the wall. Even with all of their power there are limits to how deep into global culture they can reach. Increasing demand for energy by a developing world is intersecting with some pretty well defined economic limits on delivering the power demanded. The technologies are at the point where the fact that an energy source has an ongoing fuel cost affects its viability as a significant part of the larger system.
For example, the most likely potential untapped fuel source to be harnessed would be underwater methane hydrates. There is an enormous supply but recovery is going to cost money and the generating system or ICE machinery to utilize that fuel is going to cost money. Meanwhile, as renewable technologies' manufacturing and installation infrastructure continues to expand, the costs continue to decline. It is getting to the point where it is an economic no brainer to aim for a system built on renewables. The natural gas glut which would occur should an economic way of tapping into methane hydrates were developed would be looking at a market where bulk power is being generated with no fuel costs. The natgas wouldn't be in competition with renewable generation (because it can't), it would be in competition with biomass and storage - both of which are expected to serve only a small fraction of our needs.

Yes, the fact that natgas enables a transition to renewables is being used as a selling point for natural gas. And it is both true and false. Natural gas is helpful, but fracking isn't essential by any means. If I have a criticism of your view here it would be the lack of patience. I understand the urgency of the problem, and I also feel like I'm the engineer on a train trying to stop without enough track ahead of me, but that can only shape our analysis and planning so far. The train weighs W, the brakes create X drag, the train is traveling at Y mph, and there is Z amount of distance to the end point. We are like that engineer. We have a feel for the variables, but we really don't have the time or capability to do a proper and complete analysis. Our instinct screams for the train to stop but us giving voice to that scream or entering a state of hysteria isn't going to make it stop any sooner. In fact, if the urgency is well understood it will probably interfere with efficient response to the crisis to allow panic to rule decision-making.
I'm not saying your writing is hysterical by any measure, but it does reflect a bit of the jumbled analysis that results from the hysteria that is in the atmosphere. There are people taking action to leave fossil fuels in the ground, but it is going to take time no matter how much we want it to happen yesterday.

As for making a long term commitment to shale gas, I don't think you've quite internalized the way the economics of these technologies interact. Shale gas will slow the transition, but only if counties like China and India decide that shale gas is their energy future, and that isn't going to happen. Otherwise it is (IMO) accelerating the change.

You say that I "might" be right about the performance of the gas turbines. Check it out, please; it is a well understood aspect of the issue. While you are at it look at where investment in energy is flowing. Since about 2008 (IIRC) the money is chasing renewables, both in the US and globally.

Have you considered the possibility that the shale gas boom is more hype than real? See if you can find 2 numbers to compare: first the estimated lifetime of an average shale gas well, and second the actual life of the average shale gas well. Then ask yourself what role trolling for investors might be playing in your perception of the nature of the problem.

Thanks for the chat.

Or are you just hijacking yet another thread that brings positive news about renewables, wt?

The article is about the trend towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. It focuses on the abundant renewable alternatives we have to fossil fuels, with the author only mentioning persons who claim we need fossil in order to question the wisdom of their statements.

Perhaps it was the fact that the article quotes Jacobson and his work that got you so addled that you couldn't get the gist of the piece.