A new research letter in Nature (McJeon et al 2014) concludes that globally abundant natural gas will not “discernibly reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions.” The paper models a scenario in which the US shale gas revolution is scaled globally. While natural gas displaces higher-carbon coal-fired power, zero-carbon power like nuclear and solar are also displaced, according to the model, and cheap gas encourages more energy consumption. The net impact is marginal: between 2 percent less and 11 percent more emissions in the authors’ “abundant gas” scenario:
The first thing to say about the paper is that its assumptions are its conclusions. In their “abundant gas” scenario, the authors assume “that technological change halves the extraction cost” of natural gas and that “this rate of cost reduction is more aggressive than that of most low-carbon energy sources against which natural gas is competing.” Well, if natural gas is cheaper than renewables and nuclear today, and continues to get cheaper at a faster rate than zero-carbon sources, then it should be no surprise that renewables and nuclear don’t take over in the model.
McJeon et al is only the latest paper in a series modeling natural gas’s impact on global emissions mitigation (for more, see IEA 2012, Newell and Raimi 2014, Shearer et al 2014). What all these papers have in common is their policy conclusions: that natural gas is not sufficient to achieve global climate stabilization goals and that significant further policy will be needed. Again, it’s not clear why this would surprise anyone.
The common policy prescription of these papers and the discussion around them is that “climate policy” – typically a global carbon price – is needed to make fossil energy more expensive to motivate the shift towards cleaner, more expensive sources of energy like solar and nuclear.
A carbon price would certainly help, but focusing on emissions pricing misses the fundamental point on display in these papers and in the ongoing energy transition. If natural gas is to truly become a bridge to somewhere, substantial innovation will be needed in zero-carbon energy technologies. The one non-negotiable parameter in all future energy projections should be that nations around the world will prioritize economic growth, and most will prioritize dramatic increases in energy consumption. If natural gas is the cheapest way to meet that demand growth, we shouldn’t be surprised when we miss our ostensible climate goals.
Instead of the failed attempts to price carbon for the past 25 years, scholars and policy makers would be better served by looking at the US shale gas revolution itself. As we wrote in our 2013 report Coal Killer:
If energy transitions are not automatic — if they are instead created and aided by public investments and institutions — then policymakers should keep one eye on replacing coal with gas and the other on sup- porting the development of technologies to succeed gas. To a large extent, this has long been what the United States has done, by supporting the development of natural gas, nuclear, and renewables even while coal use expanded during the 20th century. Viewed from the perspectives of history and technology, the natural gas revolution is best understood as a moment in the process of energy modernization and innovation, not its end point.
In the United States, natural gas is lowering emissions (and will continue to for decades), boosting the national economy, enabling the deployment of intermittent renewables and, ideally, providing the economic surplus to be invested in accelerating innovation in zero-carbon energy technologies.
The authors of the Nature piece are right about one thing: the US shale gas revolution is “the most important energy development in the past decade.” We should learn from it.
Davy on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 7:46 am
Obviously this cat is deluded into the gas meme. Coal is here to stay. There is no way in hell we can replace coal or oil with gas. We are damn lucky to have the gas we have. We better quit pulling our pud into thinking gas is magic. Gas is critical for our population as heat and for cooking. It does not get more important than that. In a time of general depletion and a pressured capex environment any grandiose policies of significant change are dangerous. BAU is in terminal decline. If we want to buy time to transition in some way, shape, or form we have to be realistic and husband our resources. Nuk, coal, and AltE have their sweet spots and comparative advantages. Delusional thinking can only lower our optimum energy potentials. Besides it is clearly been shown that the methane losses are significant and dangerous to AGW. The elephant in the room is lifestyle and attitude changes that are needed and will only occur in crisis. These effective changes to attitudes and lifestyles will also destroy BAU by reduced economic activity. Yet, it is this kind of reduced activity that will have the least amount of pain with the greatest gain. If we want a reboot at a softer landing then our changes must be changes that are in some way managed. Notice I didn’t say managed degrowth. Degrowth will be random, dysfunctional, with unintended abandonment. Yet, we can manage the fall within the random descent. This is an energy gradient and ecosystem cycle. These natural phenomenon follow laws. If you fight the laws you will drown. If you embrace the laws they will work with you.
rockman on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 10:24 am
“The paper models a scenario in which the US shale gas revolution is scaled globally”. First, an absurd assumption IMHO. “Scaled globally”? NG shales haven’t been scaled nationally in the US. In fact the vast majority of shale formations in the US have been proven to contain no commercial NG reserves
“…that technological change halves the extraction cost” of natural gas and that “this rate of cost reduction is more aggressive than that of most low-carbon energy sources against which natural gas is competing” What tech changes…horizontal drilling/frac’ng? I was at Devon when they were developing the Haynesville Shale…one of the few US formations known to contain potential commercial reservoirs. The Devon engineers knew as much or more about developing NG shales than anyone I’ve seen. And when prices dropped below $6/mcf the panic set in. They had 18 rigs running in the HS and when NG prices collapsed they paid $40 million in contract cancellation penalties to drop 14 of those rigs. If these guys know of new tech that can cut extraction cost in half Devon et al would pay them tens of $millions to be educated on the subject.
But I doubt they know anything. Just more folks who don’t drill/frac wells for a living who think they understand the process better then those who actually do the work.
Nony on Thu, 23rd Oct 2014 1:23 am
The Marcellus is mighty.
Davy on Thu, 23rd Oct 2014 5:32 am
NOo, we are experiencing diminishing returns to your Marcellus jawboning. Marcellus is a ass pimple compared to what awaits us. To be fair thank god we have Marcellous and all other energy sources. We will need to draw on each and every resource in the ride down the energy gradient.