Credit: Tod Baker via Creative Commons
I read in the Denver Post earlier that the head of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Dan Arvizu, said at a conference recently, “if we don’t start phasing out even a scale-up of natural gas by 2040, 2050, we will not achieve any of the carbon loading goals we have set for ourselves.
On a related note, Think Progress reports that the “International Energy Agency Finds Safe Gas Fracking Would Destroy A Livable Climate,” based on the conclusions drawn by the IEA in its recent Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas report.
They’re right, of course. Natural gas alone is not the solution to climate change or to our reliance on other, dirtier, fossil fuels. It may be better than coal or oil, but it should never be viewed as more than an intermediate step.
Besides, if we allow the gas industry to become as powerful as the oil and coal industries, we’ll probably have to fight the gas industry in 2040 in much the same way that we’re fighting coal and oil now.
So is there any place for natural gas in a renewable energy economy?
Some argue that there is no place at all for natural gas; while it may generate lower carbon emissions than coal, it is still a fossil fuel and therefore must be phased out as quickly as possible.
It’s hard to argue with that, but the problem remains that we still don’t have a fully viable alternative to energy generated using fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Don’t get me wrong: wind, solar, wave, and geothermal energy are fantastic. I have every confidence that these forms of energy production will reach the point where they provide all the energy we need.
But they’re not there yet. There are still some problems with these forms of energy that have not been fully addressed. The wind isn’t always blowing, the sun isn’t always shining, geothermal and tidal power are only available in certain regions, and the U.S. power grid isn’t nearly efficient enough to transport energy from one region to another. Unfortunately, that means that electricity from those sources is currently not as reliable as energy produced from coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants.
It’s true that a diverse energy grid drawing from of a variety of renewable sources can easily provide base load power. However, due to the intermittent nature of most varieties of renewable energy, renewables can’t produce power in a way that effectively meets peak energy demand.
Coal and nuclear power plants are also much more efficient at providing base load than peak load, because these power plants rely on turbines powered by steam. Once a coal or nuclear plant is ‘turned on’, it often takes days before it is operating at full efficiency.
Battery technology hasn’t yet reached the point where excess energy generated using renewable sources can be stored and then released later to address peak demand, so what do we do until it reaches that point?
That’s where natural gas comes in. In natural gas turbine power plants the combustion of the gas itself spins the turbine, so gas power plants don’t take nearly as long as coal or nuclear to reach peak efficiency. This makes power from gas turbines the ideal candidate to handle peak load. In fact, that’s exactly how they’re used today.
Even though the primary methods of producing natural gas are oil wells and fracking, these are not the only options. Natural gas can also be captured from ranches and landfills, or created with fermentation. When produced using these options, natural gas is much cleaner than when produced with fracking.
So yes, natural gas does have a place in a renewable energy economy, but only when used responsibly – as a complement to, not a replacement of, renewable energy.
Until better battery technology arrives, we don’t really have another option.
June 16, 2012 at 7:09 am
Great post. My main concern over natural gas are the air/ water woes fracking cause and its extreme water usage (2 – 5 million gallons per fracking well). Water is very dear and will be even dearer, so we need to understand fully the ROI on water usage. Solar is getting there with the cost of production declining rapidly from $9 a watt to $3 a watt. Plus we should not overlook these landfill, biomass projects where the methane is harvested fairly economically. It is not ironic in the movie “Back to the Future,” the future version of the car was powered by garbage.
June 18, 2012 at 8:48 am
Thanks for reading! I agree that the use of fresh water in fracking is difficult to comprehend. The fracking process makes fresh water salty, so why not just use salty or brackish water? Of course, even with salt water, the fracking process will increase the salt content to such a degree that disposal is still a major concern. I’ve also been watching the declining prices for solar technology, and I have no doubt that prices will continue to decline. The faster, the better.
June 17, 2012 at 8:01 pm
worst analysis ever. you haven’t even discussed the tradeoff of coal for cng electric generation which is essentially what happened in the past 2 years.
look at coal stocks, look at coal consumption,
look at COAL. NOT C02 exclusively for a reasonable analysis.
June 18, 2012 at 9:02 am
Thanks for reading and for your comment. I respect your opinion, but I don’t think “worst analysis ever” is particularly constructive.
As for the trade-off between coal and natural gas, you’re right that natural gas produces less pollution than coal, and therefore switching to natural gas is an important step in a transition to lower-carbon power sources.
However, that’s not the point of this post. The point is that “clean” natural gas is not a panacea – it alone cannot solve our problems, but it is an important part of the solution. My intent was to argue that, in an economy powered largely by renewable energy, there is still a place for natural gas – at least until battery technology catches up. In that scenario, it is assumed that coal has already been replaced by cleaner alternatives, like natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, and/or hydroelectric.
Furthermore, in the scenario above, natural gas is discussed as a means of meeting fluctuating demand and peak energy demand. As coal cannot do this efficiently, coal is largely irrelevant to the topic I’m discussing.
June 18, 2012 at 9:55 am
There is no such thing as clean coal. The coal gasification can harness the release of toxins while burning and that has been the trend, yet you still have the coal ash ponds which are quite toxic and usually located near water sources to keep them wet.
Fracking water is more than salty, it is quite poisonous, which is why there is such a concern over leaks into the water table. Plus, methane, arsenic and mercury and other toxins get released into the air. Finally, there is documented evidence in Arkansas and Great Britain over the deep disposal of fracking water causing earthquakes. This is being validated as of this writing in OK and Ohio.
So, the gas may be clean, but getting it is an environmental problem. There is a huge amount of data on these topics, which the Oil/ Gas industry wants to keep a lid on. We need to move away from fossil fuels in a concerted away as it takes about 15 years to make a difference on the environment.
Many thanks for writing your post. We need more conversation around these topics as our leaders are punting for the most part due to lobbying efforts.
June 19, 2012 at 7:24 am
Sorry, if I came off as heavy-handed here. Living in NC, the GOP led legislature has passed a bill that moves us closer to fracking. I have been advocating the Governor veto the bill when it passes the Senate.
June 19, 2012 at 9:14 am
I didn’t think it was heavy-handed at all – you obviously have a lot of experience in this area, so I appreciate your input. Half the point of this blog is for me to learn something, after all. Besides, I can imagine that it’s pretty frustrating to have to deal with a GOP lead legislature in NC. They have a majority here in Colorado, too, and there’s been a huge expansion of fracking and shale oil exploration in the western part of the state in recent years.
As for the environmental consequences of natural gas, I completely agree. “Clean” natural gas and “clean” coal are myth propagated by the fossil fuel industry because they make these fuel sources sound better than they are. “Cleaner” natural gas would be more accurate.
We seem to have a history of leaping before we look (not considering the long term consequences) when it comes to energy, which is why it’s so important that awareness is raised about these issues.
June 19, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Agreed on all counts. I learn something or a different way of looking at something with every blog I read. Thanks for keeping is informed and sharing your views.