uhoh wrote:It is certainly confusing. The shales, shale gas such as the Haynesville shale and shale oil, such as the Bakken and now the Eagle Ford shale, certainly do seem to be a game changer but I don't know if even they can avert peak oil.
uhoh wrote: I do think it will slow it down. But then I read this and that about how much demand will grow and that's the scary part.
americandream wrote:Nonsense, thr future is inherently a nothing. It's what we do in the here and now that determines how it turns out.
americandream wrote:Rein all that in, create a world economy that serves humankind and our your rather modest needs rather than some bloated privateer and it's contrived ballast of cornucopia, and the future could be rather cosy (of course it may be lacking in the excesses we take for granted but then again, do we really need a world awash with an army of idiots, all ensconced in their tweeting world of virtual society?)
Natural gas will provide an increasing share of America’s energy needs over the next several decades, doubling its share of the energy market to 40 percent, from 20 percent, according to a report to be released Friday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The increase, the report concluded, will come largely at the expense of coal and will be driven both by abundant supplies of natural gas — made more available by shale drilling — and by measures to restrict the carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to climate change.
In the long term, however, the future may be dimmer for natural gas if stricter regulations are put in place to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 — a goal set by President Obama. Although lower in carbon than coal, natural gas is still too carbon-intensive to be used under such a target absent some method of carbon capture, the authors of the report concluded.
The report, one of a series on energy resources, is the result of a two-year effort by 14 prominent energy experts, led by Ernest J. Moniz, an M.I.T. professor who is a former under secretary of energy. Previous reports focused on nuclear power and coal. The report was financed in part by the American Clean Skies Foundation, which represents the interests of the natural gas industry.
In the report, the authors point out that there is a mismatch between current energy practice in the United States and the nation’s energy goals. As zero-carbon wind is added to the national electric system, the report said, it is being used to reduce consumption of natural gas, which is relatively benign in carbon impact, rather than coal, which has twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. The reason is that gas is more expensive than coal.
Gas will eventually replace some of the coal used to make electricity, the study predicts, and gas will be the benchmark against which other carbon-saving technologies like wind or nuclear will be measured. But those other technologies will eventually be needed.
If the United States — and by extension the world — has a hope of shifting to a low-carbon future, that shift will almost certainly involve burning a vast volume of natural gas. So concludes an assessment by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who estimate that the US could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by at least 10 percent virtually overnight by shutting down inefficient coal-fired plants and ramping up gas-powered generators.
"In a carbon-constrained future, gas plays a particularly important role as a bridge," says Ernest Moniz, who headed the project as director of MIT's Energy Initiative (MITEI).
Burning natural gas to generate electricity emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide as coal. Following up on earlier reports covering nuclear power and coal, Moniz and his colleagues took an in-depth look at natural gas supplies and the role they could play as the world moves toward a low-carbon energy system. The new report on The Future of Natural Gas [link to pdf of report] comes at a time when 'hydraulic fracturing' technologies have opened up huge reserves of gas associated with shale formations across the US. The technique, which involves injecting high-pressure fluid into rock to open cracks and release gas, has also raised environmental concerns because of contamination risks to aquifers and surface water.
In the transportation sector, the study found a somewhat smaller role for
natural gas. The use of compressed or liquefied natural gas as a fuel for
vehicles could help to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
but to a limited extent because of the high cost of converting vehicles to
use these fuels. By contrast, making methanol, a liquid fuel, out of natural
gas requires much less up-front conversion cost and could have an impact
on oil usage and thus improve energy security, but would not reduce
greenhouse gases.
Remove policy and regulatory barriers to natural gas as a transportation
fuel.
Natural-gas consumption will increase dramatically and will largely
displace coal in the power generation sector by 2050 (the time horizon of
the study) under a modeling scenario where, through carbon emissions
pricing, industrialized nations reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by
2050, and large emerging economies, e.g. China, India and Brazil reduce
CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2070. This assumes incremental
reductions in the current price structures of the alternatives, including
renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration.
I am curious to why there is so little talk of gas to liquids technology out there given the cheap abundant natural gas and expensive and scarce oil supplies. There is Sasol from South Africa that's got a few gas to liquid projects going based on what they have already done with coal to liquids but other than them, at least to my knowledge there isn't much going on here.
Hughj wrote:No Ian, my calculator will remain in the drawer. I choose to consider this great news and
will take the IEA's word for this. Fact is, it is probably conservative, just like the history
of oil reserves have been.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests