Reflections

Will Natural Gas Be Able To Save The U.S.?

Posted by on Jan 4, 2010 | 5 Comments

There is no need to convince anyone that we in the U.S. are gluttons when it comes to the amount of oil we consume. Our consumption of  coal fires up to 50% of our electrical power and contributes to the amount of carbon dumped into our atmosphere. But according to one article I read, natural gas is now abundant in the U.S. since we have enough of the gas to power our needs for the next 90 years. Yet the current administration and congress have avoided natural gas and instead is pushing wind and solar power as the savior to our energy woes.

It’s natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It’s now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation’s homes, it’s becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.

Natural gas’ abundance and low price come as governments around the world debate how to curtail carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to global warming. The likely outcome is a tax on companies that spew excessive greenhouse gases. Utilities and other companies see natural gas as a way to lower emissions — and their costs. Yet politicians aren’t stumping for it.

In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources — solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming.

Utilities in the U.S. aren’t waiting for Washington to jump on the gas bandwagon. Looming climate legislation has altered the calculus that they use to determine the cheapest way to deliver power. Coal may still be cheaper, but natural gas emits half as much carbon when burned to generate the same amount electricity.

Plus there is this:

The wells still only capture only about a quarter of the gas locked in the shale formations. Future improvements could double that recovery rate. Bottom line: this new source of gas supply in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York and other states holds out the promise of as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of supplies. It is estimated that the U.S. sits on 83 percent more recoverable natural gas than was thought in 1990.

“The question now is how does this change the energy discussion in the U.S. and by how much?” says Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and chairman of IHS CERA, an energy consultancy. “This is domestic energy … it’s low carbon, it’s low cost and it’s abundant. When you add it up, it’s revolutionary.”

After reading this article it makes one wonder why we are not pursuing the use of natural gas as a way to cut down on our use of imported oil. I am not sure, but can we not use natural gas in our cars instead of oil?

Please share your knowledge with us and explain why or why not using natural gas is wise or not.

Thanks for reading this post.

Source

  • DB

    One reason is political. People not involved in gas business attack those who are trying to promote it. No one wants to lose their job. Not to mention the rich cannot stand a little loss…as seen in the news and elsewhere. Also the gov. wants an extortionate ‘fee’ to certify such vehicles…

    Gas is very capable and can boost HP while being cleaner; more power from a cleaner gas.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/theoracle/ the oracle

    Natural gas works well in cars, but there are a few things that need to be changed, beyond the tank and delivery (fuel injection) mechanism. The most important thing is that to get the best performance out of it, cars would have to have a compression ratio that is higher than what is delivered in them now. The higher compression ratio would have to either be accomplished through a piston change (expensive) or by artificially raising the compression by supercharging the engine (also expensive).

    Beyond that, one of the reasons we have cars with lowered compression ( compared to cars of the 1960s and 1970s ) is because the higher compression produces higher NOx (oxides of nitrogen, that brown stuff that is in the air over large cities). When the compression is lowered, the NOx levels are lowered in direct proportion. This works against the efficiency of higher compression, and is in part what offsets the lowered BTU rating of natural gas versus gasoline.

    Those are things to consider, along with the fact that the ecological problems are not removed by the use of natural gas. In the short term, however, I do think that it might be a good plan.

    What I find specious is that these huge supplies of natural gas have only been recently uncovered . That this can be true is very very suspect. I believe it was only the convenience of lower oil that caused these supplied to be occluded from the public eye.

    We have huge stores of coal, and though coal does nothing for cars directly, we should stop using oil as a fuel source for any power production, as coal can be used in a clean enough manner to keep it in the running. (Especially when we speak of import reductions in oil.)

    I think one of the problems is that not enough people are picturing how much better off we would be if we did not import oil, from anywhere. There needs to be a television production showing the benefits of total eradication of imported oil, and it needs to be shown to the entire nation over a period of days, so that all can see, and ponder it.

    Still, in the very short term, we should jump on it. Also, something I have written about before, shale oil (kerogen) should once again be taken up as a project for this nation to eliminate any oil from being imported.

    Actually, I’d like to see much more nuclear production of power, and recent articles on the building of reactors based upon thorium (in large supply, not easily weaponized and more efficient as a neutron source) show that as entirely possible. That way everyone is happy, including the No More Nukes folks.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/reflections/ reflections

    Thanks to you both for sharing your expertise.
    Jackie

  • mikey

    OK, we have enough natural gas to last us for 90 years, they claim. Around here, they pump natural gas out of the coal seams and it’s going to be a long, long, long time before the coal stops giving off methane.

    That being said, natural gas running out in 90 years may be 60 years after I die, but my grandchildren will have cold houses before they die if this is true. (In practicality, we will never run out, it will just cost more than we will want to pay, and this will happen many years before the 90 mentioned.)

    BTW, the down side to pumping natural gas from coal seams is that the water that comes up (the natural gas is actually in the water and has to be separated) is heavily mineralized. This means that it can’t just be dumped into a local creek or it will kill all life until it is dissolved enough. The good news for the gas miners around here is that usually there is enough rain and a river is usually close enough that this is a manageable problem. Out west, this may not be true.

    We’ve got to realize that we are hooked on oil. It is one of the very densest forms of chemical energy available. Anyone old enough to remember the Saturn V rockets that was used to go to the moon? They were powered with kerosene. I guarantee that it was the easiest, energy densest, most manageable material around for the job, and that’s why it was used.

    Back to being hooked on oil. I knew people when I was younger that got hooked on alcohol (the ethel drinking kind) and other drugs, and they ALL denied the fact that they were. Only after they had suffered much pain did they come to realize it and start to take steps to clean up their act.

    Let’s hope and pray that this isn’t our (America’s and the world’s) fate. Yes, we can use natural gas; it’s great feed stock for making fertilizer. There are all manner of synthetic materials (think plastics) that can be made from oil. But our dependence on oil/coal/natural gas for fuel is unhealthy and should be moderated (notice I did not say curtailed).

    Look at what is the source of this energy: the sun. Essentially these fuels are concentrated sunlight. What we need to do is cut out the “middle man” and get our energy directly from the sun (called passive solar) or through processes like photovoltaic panels, solar concentrators powering generators, wind, or even as liquid fuels directly from microbes (listen to stream.loe.org/audio/091127/091127biotech.mp3 or read the transcript at http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=09-P13-00048).

    I am not against nuclear energy, but we’ve got to solve the waste problem! Think about carrying the waste from your toilet to your back yard and putting it into an open container. You wouldn’t want to use your back yard after a while. At least not until the contents of the container have decomposed! The problem with nuclear decomposition is that it takes years, centuries, thousands, or even millions of years before they decompose to an acceptable level. Some materials like plutonium-239 has a half life of about 24000 years. Imagine a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of Pu-239. Use your knowledge of binary and imagine 10 half-lives or 240000 years (a quarter of a million years) and there would remain just a little less that one gram 1000g/(2^10). That’s enough Pu-239 to raise the chances of getting cancer by 100% for 1 million earths (assuming 5000 atoms raises the chances of cancer by 1% [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity] and the population of earth is 6 billion people.) Obviously, this stuff must be handled with care! Pu-244 has a half life of 80 million years, but hopefully it is not as common nor as radioactive (hey, 80 million years!)

    I haven’t investigated Thorium reactors and by-products, but I know it is a lot more benign. After all, it was used in Coleman lantern mantles to make them glow brightly and in vacuum tubes (valves) to emit electrons from the cathodes. But we still have tons of Pu-239 around, estimated to be around 1000 tons with around 200 tons of it in weapons grade form. Our electricity-generating nuclear reactors make an additional 20 tons a year, worldwide (see the wiki, above.)

    Peace and Sunshine,

    Mikey

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KHXXSLBO3R5HWZL44X7R4BKIMA Benjamin Roberts

    I read an article on Fiberlink’s website that mentioned Swype has petitioned for their App’s inclusion in the iTunes App Store.

    All that is pending is approval from Apple; it may benefit people to wait for this to happen instead of jailbreaking their devices.