eastbay wrote:It's going to be tough to burn more NG if we ain't finding any more....
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 OilA 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/
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gerben wrote:You are right that the distribution of CNG currently is a bottleneck. But pipelines don't cause the problem.
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.
focusonz wrote:Oh I am starting to get it. This forum is not about "Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion" but "Hastening Hydrocarbon Depletion" .
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)
focusonz wrote:Wrong, Overbuilding the housing market led to the 2006 "shelter bubble" and was the ground work for a progressive takeover. (marxism)
focusonz wrote:Wrong, 50 thousand American men died in Vietnam in Johnson "Great Society" (marxism)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests