Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:02 PM Jun 2014

The Potential Downside of Natural Gas

The Potential Downside of Natural Gas

Coal generation peaked in 2007 at a little over two billion megawatt hours while in 2013 it dropped to 1.58 billion, according to the Energy Information Administration. (A megawatt-hour, or 1,000 kilowatt-hours, is the amount of electricity a typical suburban house uses in a month.) Over the same time, gas generation started at 857 million megawatt-hours and ended at 1.2 billion.

If all the increase in gas-fired generation replaced coal, then the switch produced savings of 113.1 million tons of carbon a year.

But natural gas is starting to replace nuclear power, which can be seen as wiping out about 10 percent of the savings, because a reactor has a carbon footprint of nearly zero. Last year the owners of five reactors announced they would retire them. Some had mechanical problems or political opposition; some did not. But all were challenged by the drop in prices on the wholesale market, driven down by natural gas. And several other reactors are losing money and could close this year.

It is probably also reducing the growth of wind energy, many analysts said. Wind contributes only slightly to generation capacity needs, but whenever it runs, it saves fuel, mostly natural gas, and that gas is now worth about half of what it was a decade ago.

“There is no question that depressed natural gas prices have had an adverse effect on the wind and solar industries,” said Kenneth Kimmell, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the former commissioner of environmental protection in Massachusetts. “It’s stunting zero-carbon alternatives.”

He added, “Low natural gas prices decrease the benefit of energy-efficiency investments as well,” since the kilowatt-hours saved by installing a better air-conditioner or light bulb are worth less than they would have cost in a world with higher gas prices.

Ironic - the carbon fuel that is making life difficult for nuclear power is also making it hard for wind, solar and energy efficiency as well. We'd all better hope that the fracking bubble bursts soon, and allows natural gas prices to rise...
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Potential Downside of Natural Gas (Original Post) GliderGuider Jun 2014 OP
Price of US NatGas ought to rise, Ghost Dog Jun 2014 #1
"But not from fracking" FBaggins Jun 2014 #3
Why not import? Ghost Dog Jun 2014 #4
High prices FBaggins Jun 2014 #5
What ever we do madokie Jun 2014 #2
 

Ghost Dog

(16,881 posts)
1. Price of US NatGas ought to rise,
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 07:33 AM
Jun 2014

purely looking at the neocapitalist economics of it, as more is liquefied and sold into more expensive markets:

... Henry Hub, the U.S. benchmark for natural gas prices, is currently trading around $4.02/MMBtu and it compares attractively to the European spot rate of $10.44/MMBtu and the Japanese spot rate of $16.18/MMBtu. These price differentials should drive a robust export market. According to Wood Mackenzie Global, demand is forecast to grow from 236 mtpa (~32 Bcf/d) in 2012 to 532 mtpa (~71 Bcf/d) in 2030 - a compound annual growth rate of nearly 5% per year...

/... http://seekingalpha.com/article/2253393-the-liquid-natural-gas-market-is-taking-off


A sane World Council of Governments would progressively impose high taxes on any and all operations using hydrocarbons not classed as "essential", such as production of medicines and perhaps some specialised plastic materials (most plastic should be banned). The stuff is too long-term valuable just to burn it, apart from all the other damage done. NatGas use, as a transition fuel, should be encouraged, imo. But not from fracking. NatGas is burned-off or allowed to leak into the atmosphere (it is mostly methane) as a nuisance at many existing oil fields, and natural gas fields are relatively abundant throughout the world. Were it not for the insane neocapitalist economic and financial system currently exercising unconstitutional power almost everywhere (eg. right now USA wants to sell its LNG into Asian and European markets mostly for hegemonic geopolitical reasons), these resources would be exploited first.

*Disclaimer: I am invested in a small Australian LNG operator.

FBaggins

(26,727 posts)
3. "But not from fracking"
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:17 AM
Jun 2014
NatGas use, as a transition fuel, should be encouraged, imo. But not from fracking.

Then you can't use it in the US as a transitional fuel.

You're correct that the price "should" rise as more of it can be exported, but what you may be missing is that until just a few years ago, the US was building LNG import terminals because we couldn't produce enough of it to meet expected demand. It's only with fracking that gas can be a transitional fuel in the US.
 

Ghost Dog

(16,881 posts)
4. Why not import?
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 10:16 AM
Jun 2014

Other than for the aforementioned hegemonic geopolitical reasons...

It would most likely be more economic, all costs included, for the USA anyway.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
2. What ever we do
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 09:02 AM
Jun 2014

we need to stop the use of nuclear energy to boil water to power turbines. We need to put as many marbles as we can in alternates to coal, nuclear and natural gas.
Wind, Solar and Geothermal is where the future lies

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Potential Downside of...