Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Natural Gas Thread Pt. 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Forecast: 17M Natural Gas Vehicles Worldwide by 2015

Unread postby copious.abundance » Mon 19 Oct 2009, 22:16:42

No, there was no long, slow decline prior to 1973. Here are the yearly figures. The EIA did not track monthly numbers until 1973.

Image
Source
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Forecast: 17M Natural Gas Vehicles Worldwide by 2015

Unread postby eastbay » Mon 19 Oct 2009, 23:41:39

That's a nice example of a long term undulating plateau. It's going to be tough to burn more NG if we ain't finding any more.... as the chart tends to show.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

Re: Forecast: 17M Natural Gas Vehicles Worldwide by 2015

Unread postby Maddog78 » Fri 06 Nov 2009, 22:23:46

eastbay wrote:It's going to be tough to burn more NG if we ain't finding any more....


All due respect, you being a mod and all but that is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted on here. Are you not aware that there is a huge gas glut right now and storage volumes are higher than they've ever been? In fact all available storage is nearly full. If it's a mild winter it could well be completely full next year. Wells are being shut in and rigs have stopped drilling because there is so much gas being produced.

Anyway, why I searched up this thread is to post the lasted from T. Boone on NG vehicles.

From the front page.

Natural gas should be the vehicle fuel of the immediate future

By Sen. Mark Udall and T. Boone Pickens

Friday, November 06, 2009

Too often in Congress, and in our political debate, people stake out a position and, in the course of defending that position, refuse to credit anything their opponent is saying. We’ve all seen that.

When it comes to passing a clean energy plan for the United States, we need to take a broader, longer look at all of the tools we have at our disposal to accomplish two very important goals: Enhancing national security and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Far from being mutually exclusive, these two crucial goals are complementary and should be understood as goals that are beyond partisan politics. They really are crucial for our country’s future, along with the pressing need we also have to spur job growth and get our economy fueled up.

In spite of all the talk about energy independence since the first “energy crisis” in 1973, we are still importing nearly two-thirds of the oil we use in the United States. Why is this a national security problem? Because we are dependent on that oil from many countries and regions that are unstable or unfriendly to the United States.

Month after month, we are spending about $25 billion to buy foreign oil. Over the course of a year, that may add up to $300 billion. That is money that should be circulating through the economy of the United States, instead of the economies of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela.

To show just how dangerous this situation is becoming, earlier this month CNBC reported that Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia as “the top crude oil producer in the world, pumping a record 10.01 million barrels of output in September.”

Russia is the largest single supplier of natural gas to much of Europe. Last year, in the dead of winter, in a price dispute with Ukraine, Russia simply turned a valve and shut off supplies to Europe to force the affected countries to bring pressure on Ukraine to settle.

This is where using all the tools in our toolbox comes into play.

One bill making its way through the Senate and the House is the NAT GAS (S.1408) Act, which will help provide tax incentives to change cars and trucks running on imported gasoline and diesel to natural gas.

With recent improvements in the techniques and technology to recover natural gas from the enormous shale deposits under the continental United States, studies indicate we could have natural gas deposits that would last for more than 100 years. This is a sea-change from what we thought our natural gas reserves were prior to being able to utilize these so-called “shale plays.”

Going to domestic natural gas as a principal transportation fuel will also have significant, if not almost immediate, impacts on the U.S. economy. Along with jobs being created in other alternative energy areas, we can produce and/or save thousands of jobs in the supply chain of natural gas vehicles, from the well-head to the manufacturing floor and from sales and distribution to fueling and maintenance.

Seventy percent of the oil we import is used as transportation fuel. We can’t run 18-wheelers on batteries and, while we can and should do more with renewable energy sources like wind and solar, putting fuel in the gas tank is a special challenge. There are over 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world, but only about 130,000 in the United States. Natural gas can be used in virtually any vehicle running on our streets and highways.

Natural gas is cleaner than either oil or coal. In fact, natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. And natural gas produces almost no particulate emissions.

Natural gas can and must be developed in an environmentally responsible way that includes involvement from local communities. But properly developed, it can play a significant role in our energy future.

It is a bridge fuel that can get us to the next era of clean fuels. Natural gas will not last forever, and we will not need to use it forever. But, as a transition fuel, it can help us do our part in cleaning up the planet, it can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it can provide a real boost for jobs and the economy.

Mark Udall, a Democrat, is the senior senator from Colorado. T. Boone Pickens is chairman and CEO of BP Capital, which operates energy-focused commodity and equity funds.

User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Tue 18 May 2010, 21:53:00

The below graphs shows basically what happened and what will happen if the US energy consumption profile does not change. But you know we are at Peak oil.

Image

If the entire 244 million US automobile fleet were converted to run on Made in America natural gas, while converting natural gas and electric resistive furnaces to ground source heat pumps while new motor cars were predominately plug in EV's or hybrids the US would completely wipe out its debt, have a trade surplus, and be at 96% employment rate.

All of this can be done in 3 to 5 years.without major investments in distribution infrastructure and within the budgets of the typical American middle class family.


If anyone is interested, I can substantiate these claims in detail. Express an interest by posting to this thread and I will post another installment.
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Wed 19 May 2010, 10:59:47

Well 23 Luddites found nothing to destroy in post #1. Maybe either they or I lack passion. I know, I have no shortage of passion.

Desert solar farms can be as cheap as coal by 2025
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/17/us-desert-solar-iea
The United States could position itself as the global leader in producing utility-scale solar power from its vast deserts, with immediate and appropriate government support, a new report from the International Energy Agency says.
http://peakoil.com/forums/desert-solar-farms-can-be-as-cheap-as-coal-by-2025-t58577.html


BS

There ain't no way the American public will borrow and spend anything that sits in a desert far far away designed by bright unionized scientists during Carter, 40 years ago. The basic need of low TAXES control the political will.

As typical those risk adverse government scientists built a white elephant and avoided the challenges of designing to the insolance near large metro centers on the eastern seaboard. All the money spent then did not prove viability of the technology and nor will more money prove it today.

Why wait for 2025 anyway. For utility-scale solar power to become viable is the development of an automatic solar array constructing machine. But of course that would enrage the construction unions even more than the non-union shop for Bright Source project. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/solar_energy_meets_greenies_an.html

Tanada wrote:Problems with LNG
http://peakoil.com/forums/problems-with-lng-t1920.html
Ever notice how once Shale Gas was proven to be profitable LNG just disappeared from thread postings? I think existing facilities will continue to be used, after all a lot of money was invested building them. On the other hand I don't think many more will be built for quite some time, why add capacity to import by ship what you can drill for in many places closer to home?


Shale Gas is only profitable if NG price is at certain level. NG shortages were solved by building the LNG terminals on the Baja and pipelining it to CA. And Palin's NG pipeline through Canada will secure NG supplies for the future to other parts of the country. And Bush, by executive order, opened up millions of acres of BLM and the NG wild caters went well, WILD. There are about 320T cu ft of producing and non-producing proven reserves with wells allready drilled in the US and the infrastructure is in place to deliver NG to the customer.

NG is a hot potato. The farmers in a well managed food supply chain have got to have cheap NG for fertilizer while the voters have got to have cheap NG for home heating. The basic needs of FOOD and SHELTER continue to stymie efforts toward NGV's in America.

Natural Gas can not replace depleting petroleum reserves.
http://peakoil.com/forums/post988715.html#p988715

In order to understand the abundance of natural gas and make intelligent, long-term policy decisions, we must break out of the oil and gas mind-set by thoroughly understanding the great differences between gas and oil.


Good bump here. The point is that the propagandists whether they be the Greenies wanting marxist control of the nations energy supply or the politicians securing FOOD and SHELTER an oil and gas mindset lumps the two energy sources together into one political agenda.

Of the five basic needs, Cheaper ENERGY is the only way that America can recover from this economic depression. FOOD costs are extremely low and can't go lower. SHELTER costs are extremely low having just been overbuilt by political manipulation of the mortgage lending market. CLOTHING costs can't go lower being all made by cheap Chinese labor and TAXES can't go any lower with all the debt piling up on projects that neither reduced expenses or increased the income of the American family.

Obama's Rooseveltian policies are failing just as they did in the 30's.

Businesses and families borrow money to either reduce expenses or increase income. When the borrowing achieves an increased cash flow and increases net income then there is a payback. Ford invested the money wisely in new car designs and now they see those cars in demand and have high sales which employed more people and increased Fords profits which Ford and employees all used to pay down their debt.

This is quite different from this and the other liberal, progressive, socialist governments, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Obama, who incur debt for the taxpayer to merely repave a highway, rebuild a bridge, increase capacity of the electrical grid, or pay unemployment. This spending does not reduce expenses nor increase income but merely stave's off the inevitable for a few because once the money is gone there is no long lasting return on that investment. Replacing perfectly operational roads and bridges does not affect income or expenses so there is no long term payoff. The only thing that did return dividends was Roosevelt's building of the many hydro damns. Those projects have been paid off many times over by reduced electrical expenses to large masses of people. All the rest of the federal debt they have produced is just money poured down a rabbit hole.

Gerben wrote:The market for NGVs is one of the few (the only?) niches where there is still room. 1 mln is too much unless there is a major rush for CNG. If that doesn't happen, this is a wasted investment.


Car manufactures have explored this niche market many times over the years. The problem was and still remains distribution of NG for the NGV's. There are a couple of regions where NGV's have a market, Utah for example which has little gasoline pipeline or oil refining capacity but lots of NG. But new NGV's will fail to make any inroads into the market unless the distribution problem is solved. And projects to increase NG pipeline capacity is DOA.

That and the fact that to replace the entire 244 million US fleet of gasoline vehicles with NGV or EV's will take 14 years of new car sales volumes in the best of economic times.

An thus we stand at a precipice. And all the posters here do is just run in circles and scream and shout. Do we want this recession and peak oil hand wringing and greenie GHG crap and wasting money on infrastructure projects with no payback to go on for a decade until a global war erupts or is there a way for everyone to win win today. There is a way! The US has done it before and it led to the greatest economic boom in US history.

As evidenced by the below graph the iberal, progressive, socialist governments, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Obama, spending policies did not put people back to work and actually made the situation worse. Now what policy, if implemented, by the 112th and 113th congresses and President Palin would increase income and/or decrease expenses for the largest number of people?
Image

Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Wed 19 May 2010, 16:50:41

eXpat wrote:Effect of loss of Deep Horizon on future production?
http://peakoil.com/forums/post995549.html#p995549
The title says it all...
The World Can't Live Without Deepwater Oil
A common misunderstanding of Peak Oil is that its proponents are claiming that "we're running out of oil." More accurately, Peak Oil foresees a point of maximum production, and the possibility that demand for oil will greatly exceed the available supply. In that scenario, the price of oil would rise, perhaps significantly.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/the-world-cant-live-without-deepwater-oil/19476896/


The title says nothing and is BS. The excerpted portion is the truth and demand is the problem and is solvable in 3 to 5 years all within budgets of middle class America, pushing peak oil out 50 to 100 years.

eXpat wrote:Effect of loss of Deep Horizon on future production?
http://peakoil.com/forums/post995549.html#p995549
Look how clever the writer thinks he is by "refuting" PO with new offshore developments. You are going to have a rough awakening pal! :twisted:

Oh I am starting to get it. This forum is not about "Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion" but "Hastening Hydrocarbon Depletion" .

americandream wrote:I think it's [AGW] more an issue of what we're missing rather than what we are monitoring. After the recent cockups with the financial markets and now the regulatory bonkfest in Gulf exploration, are any of the numerous human agencies worldwide up to the task of monitoring the detritus of capitalism. Methinks not.


The episodes are not "cockups " (A blunder; a mess.) they are purposeful propaganda to further an agenda to turn capitalism into "detritus" ( Disintegrated or eroded matter: the detritus of past civilizations) to the ruin of the American way of life and take the world down with it in the process. And what does political spinning of financial and Gulf exploration events have to do with the scientific inquiry into AGW. Not a damn thing and is brainwashing dialectic!

The contribution of an US energy policy to reduce the US from debt is revealed in the below graph. What is not clearly shown but must be pointed out is that all the increase in energy production to wage WWII of about 50 million barrels per month between 1942 and and 1946 played a pivotal part in post war economic boom as that energy was no longer being used to manufacture war materials or exported to allied forces it was used to create abundance, "two chickens in every pot and two cars in every garage"

Of special note looking at the period 1980 to 1985 imported oil was reduced by 1/2 and the Alaska north slope and trans Alaska pipeline was producing and operational. But the new oil from Alaska helped but does not account for the precipitous drop in imports.
Image

And what if I claimed that switching to NGV's that CO2 emissions would be reduced by a 1.5 billion metric tons in 3 years and 6 billion metric tons in 5 years which are by the way the targets set in the cap and tax bill and could be completed at a 10th of the cost?

Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery will put an end to the Peak Oil controversy and significantly reduce CO2 emissions

54 views and no comments. Do posters here want a peak oil catastrophe?
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby Pops » Wed 19 May 2010, 18:43:29

What kind of argument do you want? You are obviously spoiling for a fight.

But first you need to explain to the good folks what you and zero energy gambit are selling and what is your interest, let's be honest. BTW, who came up with "gambit" anyway, really poor choice. If this is this a mainly a partisan political operation to show that your party can say more than no, I guess you are doing OK, on the other hand, if it is really about our energy future you probably should forego the spin.

And what's the deal with oil production going to zero in '15 on your opening chart? Spend a little time courting us Luddites - no one else is going to listen or you wouldn't be here, right?

Personally, I think Picken's plan along with nukes is a good first move - but it ain't gonna happen in 3 years, get over that unless you forsee some socialist style government funded mandate which you obviously detest. If Pickens couldn't get a loan on it, how do you expect me to refit my car or buy a new EV or change over my heat source.

Of course you are pushing a tax credit and a lot more, I didn't read the whole thing but you are talking mandates, rebates, credits and something about dead-beat dads too. I'm not sure how excited the party-goers are going to be about all that government intrusion - Drill Baby Drill and all that.

OK, here's an argument, lets say we switch over everything to gas in 3 years all on the government's credit card (which of course is a fantasy but lets go with it anyway) how long do you think US gas reserves will last? And try to find an unbiased source, please.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby Gerben » Thu 20 May 2010, 06:27:31

focusonz wrote:Car manufactures have explored this niche market many times over the years. The problem was and still remains distribution of NG for the NGV's. There are a couple of regions where NGV's have a market, Utah for example which has little gasoline pipeline or oil refining capacity but lots of NG. But new NGV's will fail to make any inroads into the market unless the distribution problem is solved. And projects to increase NG pipeline capacity is DOA.

You are right that the distribution of CNG currently is a bottleneck. But pipelines don't cause the problem. It's possible to develop local markets where there is plenty of natural gas locally. Utah is a good example. This can reduce rather than increase the need for pipeline capacity since the gas can be used locally. The isue is building the compression (refueling) capacity to compress the NG and supply it to vehicles. The good news is that it is possible to expand this capacity quickly when demand increases. We're seeing a slow expansion atm. This expansion could lead to a turning point in the market where everybody will want a piece of the action.

That and the fact that to replace the entire 244 million US fleet of gasoline vehicles with NGV or EV's will take 14 years of new car sales volumes in the best of economic times.

You can convert the gasoline vehicles. That's how they did it in all the leading NGV countries as well.
User avatar
Gerben
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Thu 20 May 2010, 12:45:50

Pops wrote:What kind of argument do you want? You are obviously spoiling for a fight.

But first you need to explain to the good folks what you and zero energy gambit are selling and what is your interest, let's be honest. BTW, who came up with "gambit" anyway, really poor choice. If this is this a mainly a partisan political operation to show that your party can say more than no, I guess you are doing OK, on the other hand, if it is really about our energy future you probably should forego the spin.

And what's the deal with oil production going to zero in '15 on your opening chart? Spend a little time courting us Luddites - no one else is going to listen or you wouldn't be here, right?

Personally, I think Picken's plan along with nukes is a good first move - but it ain't gonna happen in 3 years, get over that unless you forsee some socialist style government funded mandate which you obviously detest. If Pickens couldn't get a loan on it, how do you expect me to refit my car or buy a new EV or change over my heat source.

Of course you are pushing a tax credit and a lot more, I didn't read the whole thing but you are talking mandates, rebates, credits and something about dead-beat dads too. I'm not sure how excited the party-goers are going to be about all that government intrusion - Drill Baby Drill and all that.

OK, here's an argument, lets say we switch over everything to gas in 3 years all on the government's credit card (which of course is a fantasy but lets go with it anyway) how long do you think US gas reserves will last? And try to find an unbiased source, please.

------------
Well Pops, let’s get it on! You have a vested interest being a moderator so you would be derelict to not provide a good debate. I will address by enumeration, your comments above even though they are off point of my original thought. One cannot win without doing battle and knowing up close and personal the marxsist enemies that appear to inhabit this forum. I am not including you in that group at this point and I offer response for our mutual benefit and to their demise.

1. My interests are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In order to achieve those I have to have freedom to secure in the manner of my life the 4 basic needs, FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHING, ENERGY and taxes are a necessary evil to pay good people with my interests in mind to assist in stewardship and marshalling of the resources and mechanisms and do it in a way that others similar pursuits is not hindered, and that would make me happy.

The fiscal conservatives, capitalist oriented, for the most part Republican have demonstrated an aptitude for stewardship: FOOD supplies are abundant and secure, and ENERGY is abundant and secure, no one was without SHELTER before this bubble, and CLOTHING is abundant (manufactured using cotton and petrochemicals from right here in the USA.)

On the other hand the Democrats since Carter have an aptitude for screwing things up. And the Democrats now taken over by the extreme left are threatening to outright steal the fruits of my labor which is the Marxist way. They recently just destroyed SHELTER again for the 2nd time and millions of people are being thrown out of their homes. They have no plan to secure ENERGY except one that involves a far off 50 year dream. And for their political advancement they have set their eye on destroying the FOOD industry as well. And of course their eyes are set on inheritance taxes to take more SHELTER.

2. I am here to spread the word for the search engines. Because anything I have to say to Marxists will strike no cord. But for a few, maybe including you Pops, the information will get stashed away and you might find it useful in a future crunch time.

The graph goes to zero signifying that a Marxist nationalization of the oil industry will forever alter our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as did WWII, another battle against Marxism. Call the Axis by whatever name, fascists, Nazis, socialists all had their roots in Marxist ideology the goal of which to wrest control of the means of production away from the individual and turn it to the will of the state.

3. Pickens is a pig. All he wanted was to build his windmills or maybe monopolize water. I proved that windmills could never replace NG used to produce electricity as NG is primarily used in the US to provide peak load while windmills are a base load generator. Sure a few states, FL and CA, provide base load from NG but they are a long long away from the wind corridor so distribution as it turned out and as I predicted was his plans Achilles hill.

He could have modified his plan to focus on NGV’s which he half assed by promoting NG to replace diesel fuel to reduce imported oil. What he should have done was to focus on Z converting the entire US 244 million fleet to NG, figured a way to distribute the NG to that fleet, and promote his windmills to supply the electricity for plug in EV’s and hybrids of a future.

Pickens couldn’t get a loan because he couldn’t distribute to his only markets and the loan had nothing to do with the availability of funds. His business model was flawed and he could only sell it to the stupid government. And the governments business model is flawed in the sense that spending on debt as they are wont to do, does not increase income or decrease expenses for We the People.

Roosevelt's building of the many hydro damns in objection to by private energy suppliers returned dividends. The time is past for big government spending on that type of project but there exists one and only one infrastructure where individual spending will reap huge rewards. The real estate bubble was created in three years it can be uncreated in three years.
Image



The problem is the US is exporting its wealth, as Pickens said.

4. We the People don’t like and abhor government intrusion. But We the People also like a good deal when we see one. And a good deal is reduction in TAXES coupled with limited government spending. It is after all how We the People have established and maintained a supply of the basic need for FOOD and have insured the free market flow of ENERGY.

We the People have failed to provide stable SHELTER as all of this housing bubble would not have occurred had the Apartment industry been stewarded and marshaled properly a long time ago. Forcing landlords to take depreciation tax deduction and allowing the depreciation expense to offset taxes on other income only fosters corruption as can be seen with dilapidation of many housing projects, public or private, of the cities.

The tax incentives were needed years ago when SHELTER was in limited supply. But the failure of the public housing of the inner cities provided the motivation for the liberals to screw with the housing market. Those hand wringing liberals then overshoot their objectives as usual and cause everybody to suffer rather than specifically targeting problems with specific solutions.

5. Well a point of diminishing returns exists in the future where securing ENERGY from oil and natural gas will become more costly than other sources. The 1978 oil crisis and the 2008 Oil crisis are indicative of the difficulty of obtaining oil resources for the worlds ENERGY needs. Setting off alarm bells with a “peak oil” catastrophe and “global warming” catastrophe may frighten the young and motivate them but the older and wiser population see it for just what it is so much political BS hiding other agendas. So my data is presented in terms of the age of a 29 year old in 2008, in the mantissas of below US oil and Natural gas consumption and production projection graphs. The abscissas are in barrels of oil equivalent.

Now the proven and unproven reserves of natural gas are from conventional obtained reservoirs. So the graphs do not reflect US coal gasification or US shale deposits, the unconventional sources. The data is from the EIA as trustworthy as any source when it comes to prognostication. At least it was before the current regime that might have turned it toward furthering their agenda.

The left side graph, US oil consumption and production projection, shows the effect on supply if US oil was directed toward US industry only and for reference the graph on the right, US oil consumption and production projection shows the effect on supply if the US oil was directed to all uses, including gasoline for vehicles.

Image Image


The left side graph, US NG consumption and production projection, shows the effect on supply if US NG was directed toward US NGV’s and industry. For reference the graph on the right, US NG consumption and production projection shows the effect on supply if the US NG was directed to all current uses, not including increased demand by NGV’s.
Image Image

It is called a gambit because eliminating oil imports to America, A major shift in the geo-politics, may have unintended consequences.

I speculate that the consequences will be good for most of the world because if a major consumer of oil goes off the market and releases the oil otherwise used to other countries at a possible significantly lower price. I think Venezuela will see the regime crumble though, which is for the best anyway. And the House of Saud might have to renegotiate some loans but they can handle it. Who knows how massive over supply of oil on Europe will play out but it will be for their benefit I am sure.

It is called a gambit to impress upon people that if the rewards reaped by implementation today if not spent and invested and saved wisely then the problem will just have to be revisited at some point in the future.

This is why the graphs show a peak in consumption of natural gas as more and more new electric plug-in EV’s and hybrids are purchased the ENERGY demand has to switch to all electricity as a direct conversion of heat energy to electrical energy to mechanical energy is the least cost of any other technology and the electrical infrastructure is in place. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that all other possible energy sources including hydrogen, algae, other bio, CHP, and etc all require huge expenditures in infrastructure both in production capacity or distribution. The energy from the earth and from the sun converted to electricity or heat is the least cost route to sustainability that the kids want so much.

The below graph shows the projected consumption of oil, NG, and electricity as the shift from imported oil for gasoline to NGV’s to EV’s occurs. In a practical sense the US may use NG for many, many years as the extraction costs of NG from coal and shale deposits are on order of prices that the American public is used to paying for gasoline at the pump but those prices may be higher than what the FOOD industry is accustomed to for fertilizer.

Image



NB. I have a bug in this graph which I have not taken the time to fix. The switch from and ICE to an EV did not account for the piss poor conversion efficiency of the ICE. The demand BOE for electricity should be much lower.

6. Thanks for the post. I was happy to oblige with a reply. I will provide in the next installment “The US Tri-fuel Vehicle and GSHP Energy Policy and Economic Recovery Plan”. A plan that is not on the government credit card. I hope you read this thing, that thing, and the whole thing.
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby Pops » Thu 20 May 2010, 13:49:55

That's quite a post! I don't quite get the graphs and the 28 year old thing but I'm like 50, so that's to be expected I guess.

I just had time to skim but didn't see how long you figure gas will last if we switched everything over today.

I didn't see where you sourced your reserve estimates.

I know there has been a lot of gas hype latley, BP's '09 review said the US has about 10 years supply of gas at current gas consumption?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Thu 20 May 2010, 13:56:29

Gerben wrote:You are right that the distribution of CNG currently is a bottleneck. But pipelines don't cause the problem.


NG pipeline capacity is the problem! Look at the situation closer.

The intrastate feeder pipes into the neighborhoods were only sized to supply the home and commercial and some small industrial demand 40 years ago. The interstate pipelines are very large, the designers 40 years ago anticipated growth in industrial demand. That is why you only see NG refueling stations located close to the branch feeders off the interstate pipelines and NG electric generators is in only those locations as well.

Investment in an increased NG pipeline capacity infrastructure interstate or intrastate has no payback (50 year horizon) and fraught with environmental road blocks. Switching no longer needed crude or refined gasoline interstate pipelines to supply increased demand of NG is only a problem of refitting the pumping stations all along the line which may have payback (15 year horizon) but will only be needed if the US stays on NG for transportation not moving to plug-in electric.

And also look at the policies of the Public utility commissions, who will deny regulated NG suppliers from jeopardizing home, commercial, and industrial supplies by allowing construction of NG refueling stations at the local level and determining a rate structure for such service.

You can determine this truth for yourself by going to the city planning departments. They have the maps of the underground realities.

NG Compressors and other refueling station equipment at local convenience store is not a problem because this equipment has been widely available and supplied by the US around the world for years. The world is way ahead of the US in NG refueling but not the equipment needed to do the refueling.

NGV's will not gain any market share when the local pipeline bottleneck is solved.

The pipeline bottle neck is easily solved and has rapid payback (5 year horizon) and will supply the small impetus to the suppliers and the PUC to act.
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Thu 20 May 2010, 15:16:39

Pops wrote:That's quite a post! I don't quite get the graphs and the 28 year old thing but I'm like 50, so that's to be expected I guess.
I just had time to skim but didn't see how long you figure gas will last if we switched everything over today.
I didn't see where you sourced your reserve estimates.
I know there has been a lot of gas hype latley, BP's '09 review said the US has about 10 years supply of gas at current gas consumption?


focusonz wrote:Now the proven and unproven reserves of natural gas are from conventional obtained reservoirs. So the graphs do not reflect US coal gasification or US shale deposits, the unconventional sources. The data is from the EIA as trustworthy as any source when it comes to prognostication. At least it was before the current regime that might have turned it toward furthering their agenda.


RE NG gas supply and drilling.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr ... _NUS_a.htm
You see that there is 85T cu ft of NG drilled but not producing
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_con ... _nus_a.htm
from this data you see that total consumption is 22T cu ft annually

SO THERE IS AT LEAST 4 YEARS SUPPLY OF NG IN THE GROUND READY FOR RELEASE TO THE PIPELINE BY JUST TURNING A VALVE.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr ... _NUS_a.htm
from this data you see that there is 244T cu ft of proven reserves drilled and producing

SO THERE IS AT LEAST 10 YEARS SUPPLY OF NG IN THE GROUND CURRENTLY BEING RELEASED TO THE PIPELINE AS CALLED BY CONSUMPTION. (note there is very little storage of NG, it is produced when needed) Found the info in same location as BP apparently.

I include the proven and unproven conventional reserves for the graphs. Unproven reserves are those that have been seismically located but not drilled to be proven.

Changing the energy consumption paradigm as in “The US Tri-fuel Vehicle and GSHP Energy Policy and Economic Recovery Plan” pushes the depletion of proven and unproven US oil and US NG out to 2060 and 2070 respectively.

SO THERE IS AT LEAST 70 YEARS OF SUPPLY OF NG IN THE GROUND IN THE US THAT CAN BE USED FOR NGV'S UNTIL EV'S HAVE WIDE MARKET PENETRATION.

But remember these data does not reflect US coal gasification or US shale deposits which can be measured in 100's of years. And also do not forget that proven and unproven reserves is a dynamic number totally still a function of merely finding it in its hiding places and the cost of extraction and price to be obtained.

Image
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby copious.abundance » Thu 20 May 2010, 22:43:34

focusonz wrote:Oh I am starting to get it. This forum is not about "Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion" but "Hastening Hydrocarbon Depletion" .

You are close. More precisely, this forum is about "Advocating the Imminent Decline of Hydrocarbon Production, Largely Through Scare Tactics."

BTW, this graphic is so bad it isn't funny. It looks like it was drawn by a 16-year-old with a memory span of about 1 year. For starters, progressive policies did not do in the US textile industry, rising wages and the increasing availability of lower-wage labor from other nations, coupled with increasing abilities to trade (container cargo, low tariffs, etc.) spelled the demise of American textiles. No policy, conservative or liberal, could have stopped that.

The "shelter bubble" began to pop in 2006, when Bush was in office. I can't believe someone would be so dumb as to even *think* of suggesting Obama caused the housing bubble to pop.

I would hardly call 1950-1974 any sort of "conservative coalition." Someone seems to forget that's when the Great Society was enacted, along with a ton of other progressive legislation. Even Nixon was a screaming radical on many domestic issues.

And so on. If I were a conservative, this graphic would be an embarrassment.

Image
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Fri 21 May 2010, 09:02:31

Wrong, Progressives abolished textile import tariffs to the demise of the US textile industry and loss of 100's thousands of US jobs. (marxism)

Wrong, Overbuilding the housing market led to the 2006 "shelter bubble" and was the ground work for a progressive takeover. (marxism)

Wrong, 50 thousand American men died in Vietnam in Johnson "Great Society" (marxism)

And the latest atrocity
A foreign corp "Beyond Petrolium" conspired with Obama's MMS to bring on the Gulf oil disaster.

It isn't funny that
Progressive marxists have been hell bent on destroying America for a hundred years

Well Never forget, Remember in November!
Today, You are still the Commanders and Chiefs

Only the true American conservatives have reduced taxes and US debt and created abundance of FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER, ENERGY for every US citizens.
These times were called the "roaring 20's", "the post war boom","the Contract with American"


Image
Last edited by focusonz on Fri 21 May 2010, 09:26:31, edited 1 time in total.
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Fri 21 May 2010, 09:23:42

The problem is not Peak oil

The real problem is Peak Electricity.

Image

The graph shows that additions of electrical generating capacity has fallen behind the projected demand. This is all a result of marxist takeover to create yet another crisis.

Expect Brownouts.
People die without electricity.
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby focusonz » Fri 21 May 2010, 09:53:37

The below graph clearly shows what occurred to cause the reduction of oil imports period 1980 to 1985. It was the mass conversion of fuel oil furnaces to natural gas furnaces and the conversion of gasoline vehicles to propane. Both Energy sources were Made in the USA then and still are to this day.
Image


WELL OUR NATURE IS TO PLAN FOR WORST AND HOPE FOR THE BEST!

Well we know the problems so any plan has to have a succinct stated goal.

THE GOAL OF THE PLAN – Obtain sustainable energy sources to support desired life style of the entire world population at the predicted population level at the time of obtaining. The desired lifestyle lies somewhere between abject poverty and US middle class affluence. Let us set the goal at US middle class affluence for the entire world population.

Well any plan to solve problems of high complexity such as “rank shortage” of OIL and raising the lifestyle of the entire world population must consist of a phased implementation. The problem must be broken down into simple parts. And those problem parts are categorized according to required time frame for solution. Then the problem space now on a timeline is inspected for problems which might have common solutions.

Having performed the problem analysis then a basic plan outline emerges:

THE PLAN OUTLINE
1. Restore the world economy in such a fashion so the unemployed are part of the solution.
2. Redistribute the existing energy resources so that more of the world population approaches the US middle class affluence but at the same time having no effect on the US middle class affluence.
3. Apply existing energy resources to activities that reduce consumption rates and to develop sustainable energy sources. Do not or at the least avoid the Application of existing energy resources that are not needed when the reduced consumption rate and sustainable energy source(s) are obtained.
4. Devise a stratagem which motivates the world population to embrace and act upon the plan of their own free will so that they may help themselves.
5. Devise a stratagem which motivates the world population to limit their proclivities toward procreation of their own free will so that they may help themselves.
6. Devise a stratagem if 1 through 5 cannot be achieved - FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION
7. NOTE: A carbon trading scheme is not conducive to success of the plan as the administration costs are not available to create real benefits and taking capital away from the US where most of the energy consumption problem lies will severely hinder the US solving its part of the problem and there exist an alternative to a carbon trading cap and tax scheme.

THE PLAN TIMELINE
1. 1.5 years (2012) – “rank shortage” of OIL bringing on free market price escalation
2. 5 years (2015) – US oil consumption must be 50% of 2010 US consumption
3. 5 years (2015) – 1.5 billion metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions
4. 15 years (2025) – 6 billion metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions
5. 20 years (2030) – World Oil consumption must at 50% of 2010 consumption
6. 20 years (2030) – World fresh water consumption for food must be at 50% of 2010 consumption


The US NG/PROPANE/E85 Vehicle and GSHP Energy Policy and Economic Recovery Plan

NEAR TERM now till 2015,
Oil Price pressure from high demand motivates US population to alter energy consumption
1. Replace electric resistive and natural gas heating from 50 million apartments and 60 million single family residences in the US with 900% solar thermal assisted Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) . Electric consumption will be reduced by upwards of 50% and NG heating for homes will be eliminated.
2. The 5 year CO2 reduction targets are met and exceeded and there is excess electrical service needed for the US middle class affluence life style.
3. Convert existing cars to NG/PROPANE/E85 reduces US oil consumption by 50% and the US importation of oil falls to zero. So coming off natural gas for our homes we can come up on NG for cars and the NG pipeline infrastructure will be sufficient without additions.
4. The elimination of US oil imports makes that oil available to world markets increasing affluence.
5. An increased affluence is usually associated with lowered birth rates in a population.
6. NOTE: This near term phase is absolutely necessary as it will otherwise require 14 years to replace the 244 million gasoline vehicles with new electric hybrids at the normal replacement rate in the US of about 12 million cars annually
7. NOTE: No changes to the electrical grid are needed in this time frame.
8. NOTE: Oil and gas exploration and production is still necessary as so much of the life style relies upon products derived from oil and natural gas and are made requiring the concentrated energy in oil and gas.

MID TERM now till 2025,
NG Price pressure from high demand motivates US population to alter energy consumption again
1. Continue replacement of electric resistive and natural gas heating in homes and businesses.
2. The CO2 reduction targets are met and exceeded and there is excess electrical service needed for the US middle class affluence
3. The saved electricity then is available to charge the batteries of plug-in hybrid and all electric vehicles newly purchased.
4. The batteries are then used to store the electrical energy produced when the wind don't blow, the sun don't shine, or the hydro don't flow
5. Electric cars become an integral part of the electrical distribution infrastructure
6. Elimination of overhead infrastructure associated with NG and gasoline distribution and the reduced cost of oversupply of oil will make products cheaper will increase affluence again and birth rates will be lowered again.
7. NOTE: No increase in electric grid capacity is anticipated because the electrical demand curve is flattened during the day and over the seasons and the overall loading is about the same for decreased consumption in homes and increased consumption in cars and the batteries provide the hysteresis in the system.

LONG TERM now till 2050,
Electricity price pressure from high demand motivates electricity suppliers to supply
1. Electrical energy from CO2 neutral, inexhaustible, and FREE energy sources of the wind, earth, and sun.
2. Worldwide middle class affluence achieved and worldwide zero population growth achieved as affluence and population growth rate are directly linked.
3. Worldwide energy sustainability achieved.
4. NOTE: Procreation is as much culturally linked as it is affluence linked so a couple of human generations may be required before ZPG is achieved.
5. NOTE: Anything can happen outside the influence of mans dominion to disrupt these endeavors. But man will survive!

ACTIONS
1. Let market forces motivate the population so they can exercise free will and then allow the capital markets to thrive and perform their function.
2. Widely distribute the plan so the two step process in the near term is understood by the population.
3. Bring pressure to bear on the US government to change regulations regarding conversion of existing automobiles to NG/PROPANE/E85
4. Bring pressure to bear on the US government to adjust the energy tax credits giving emphasis to GSHP coupled to NG/PROPANE/E85 vehicle conversions
5. Promote plug-in hybrid and all electric cars.
6. NOTE: Deemphasize solar electricity generation in homes as maintaining 110 million residential electric solar panels is cost exorbitant compared to the very small cost of maintaining a few thousand centralized solar electric farms.
7. NOTE: Locate windmills closer to the consumer and avoid the cost of electric distribution infrastructure. The Great lakes and off the coast of Rhode Island and off the cost of Oregon are ideal concentrated high wind energy areas.

Republican, fiscal conservatives, who believe in free market ideals and small government who support politicians with the same ideals can do all the planning while the democrats can do all the hand wringing leaving it up to the middle class independents to be the ones motivated by their pocket book to do all the right things.And the Marxists can go to hell.

Z American Energy

We are where we are!

We are without political leadership during an economic downturn going on depression caused by whomever you wish to point a finger at. Well pointing fingers doesn’t do any good or get anything accomplished.

I am here to provide some leadership, empowering you to create your own unique solution while at the same time empowering you to create more personal abundance for you. We each will offer our little something but when all our actions are taken together abundance will be created for all and it will be huge.

Any recovery must start at home and at the local level. Just as the settlers of our land learned a certain amount of co-dependency was greatly beneficial. What we make here must stay here and if we make more than what we need we export it. And what we need, our necessities, is what I will focus on. Energy is a necessity. And optimism is the power. And working and working smarter will get us through.

What we can throw overboard!

1. We don’t need imported oil to fuel our cars.
2. We don’t need propane made from imported oil to heat our homes.
3. We don’t need natural gas to heat our homes


What we need to salvage!

1. We need to use the electricity made right here in US wisely and efficiently.
2. We need natural gas Made in America to fuel our cars.

Truths

What was true 200 years ago is true today.

Our forefathers spent money and worked to clear the land to make more food products to sale for goods and services needed by their families, today we work harder to provide for our families. There is no way around the adage; you have got to spend money to make money! And since we are co-dependant then we each must do what we can and are able to do. Those that can afford to do a lot must do a lot while those that can’t afford to do a lot must do what they can afford.

For those that can afford the investment in a Ground source heat pump and Solar thermal panels will reduce the demand on natural gas, propane, and electricity thereby reducing demand on these resources resulting in a reduction in price to those who can’t afford the investment. And reduced prices means more disposable income for everyone to be spent in the local businesses. What goes around will come around.

Our forefathers had faith to sustain them; faith in a God and faith in their neighbors. And if you believe in this so it shall be.

Our forefathers built this land from the sweat of their brow and the toil of their hands and this has not changed. We continue to sweat and toil but we are blessed with today’s technology making us individually more productive requiring us to sweat and toil less for our needs.

Working Smarter not harder!

My Grandfather built his home with a fireplace for primary space heating as everyone did at the time. As I was told the story Grandfathers house was unique and daring and he was told that it would not work. Grandfather’s fireplace was totally inside the house. The fireplace was not on an exterior wall as was typical for the era. This thinking of grandfather was and still is perfectly rational. Grandfather worked smarter not harder.

Putting the concept in today’s technical terms. The fireplace is a thermal mass that absorbs heat and retains it while radiating its heat for a long time to its surroundings. Putting the heated thermal mass totally inside the thermal envelop of the home then insures that all the heat from the burning wood is kept inside the home where it is needed. Today we would call such innovation central heating.

Likewise you can work smarter not harder when it comes to your energy needs today. Work is energy and energy is work. Working smarter means using less energy to do the same thing and this will leave more of the fruits of your labor for other things, the fun things, the fulfilling things in your life.

The US NG/PROPANE/E85 Vehicle and GSHP Energy Policy and Economic Recovery Plan

The lynch pin of the World's economic recovery



FYI links
GSHP FAQ http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/geothermal/faq.htm
GSHP http://www.eagle-mt.com/
NGV RETROFIT KIT http://www.cngoutfitters.com/
E85 RETROFIT KIT http://www.fuelflexint.com/
SOLAR THERMAL PANEL http://www.integratedsolar.com/
focusonz
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 29 Apr 2010, 11:13:43

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 21 May 2010, 22:04:08

Wow, this guy is even more clueless than most of the doomers here! I never thought I'd say that, but it's true. :o There isn't a single coherent thought in this entire diatribe! At the same time he's railing against progressives and Marxism, he's tell us we need a national policy to promote natural gas use!! Heck, it's even got time targets, as in one of those Soviet 5-year plans.
focusonz wrote:Wrong, Progressives abolished textile import tariffs to the demise of the US textile industry and loss of 100's thousands of US jobs. (marxism)

Hello??? Abolishing tariffs is a capitalist move. You know - free trade and all that? Here we have a guy advocating letting the free market do its thing in most of his ramblings here, but above he tells us the classic capitalist prescription of free trade was a *bad* thing which led to the fall of the textile industry. :roll: :lol:

focusonz wrote:Wrong, Overbuilding the housing market led to the 2006 "shelter bubble" and was the ground work for a progressive takeover. (marxism)

Umm . . . hello again??? Your own graphic says, "Progressive caused 2009 shelter bubble." Now you're telling me the progressive takeover occured after the 2006 housing collapse. If the progressives did not gain power until after the housing/shelter bubble collapsed, they could not have caused it. So you already disagree with your own graphic. :-D

focusonz wrote:Wrong, 50 thousand American men died in Vietnam in Johnson "Great Society" (marxism)

This is the epitome of stupidity. The Vietnam War was a war fighting against Marxists (the Vietnamese communists). So, it's Marxist to to try defeat Marxists?

I hope there's no limit to the amount of smily faces we can post here . . . . :lol: :lol: :-D :roll: :badgrin:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Natural Gas - The lynch pin of the US economic recovery

Unread postby Aging gypsy » Sat 21 Aug 2010, 09:00:49

Progressive marxists hell bent on destroying America?
Don`t know about that, AMERICANS seem hell bent on destroying America and the rest of the world with it!
USE LESS, there`s your starting point America. :roll:
User avatar
Aging gypsy
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri 28 May 2010, 08:58:54
Location: Edinburgh

Question about Natural Gas "EXtration Losses"

Unread postby Frank » Mon 15 Nov 2010, 08:29:58

I was looking at the EIA site and found this:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9060us2m.htm

Does anyone know what causes these losses? They're at an all-time high right now but so is output. Comments?

TIA
User avatar
Frank
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed 15 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Maine/Nova Scotia

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests