 | DrumBeat: December 5, 2006 | The Oil Drum | Council on Foreign Relations -"National Security Consequences of Oil Dependency" |  |
| Ukraine vs Russia: Tales of pipelines and dependence | The Oil Drum: Europe | Fuel duty and the effect of oil prices on the UK economy | |
Natural Gas: how big is the problem?
Posted by Luis de Sousa on December 5, 2006 - 11:11am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: electricity generation, gas shortages, mitigation, natural gas, peak natural gas, russian gas [list all tags]
Doesn't this graph just chill you?
Let's try to have a broader look on the Natural Gas supply challenge that both Europe and North America face these days, with the help of Jean Laherrère.
Jean Laherrère presented an article entitled "Oil and Gas: what future?" at the Groningen annual Energy Convention, a few days ago. This article is available, as usual, at Jean's space in OilCrisis.com.
On the first half of the article Jean goes through the usual assessment of Discovery, Reserves and Production for Conventional Oil showing the same results as in previous papers, resulting of the merging of two major data bases: IHS Energy's and Wood Mackenzie's. In this latest paper he goes on and does the similar concerning Natural Gas.
Jean Laherrère's work is really priceless, in fact he has the data (which most of us hasn't) but he really knows what information to get out of it, producing excellent easy to read graphs.
Reserves
Jean explains that for Natural Gas the assessment of remaining reserves is more difficult, for both data bases concern different domains: Wood Mackenzie reports solely recoverable gas reserves whilst IHS Energy reports considerable amounts of stranded gas. Although not as reliable as oil data, the data for gas already yields a clear downward trend:
The peak in Natural Gas remaining reserves was crossed in the late 1980s (circa 6000 Tcf), just ten years after Conventional Oil. The cross point with political reserves happened in the turn of the century, equally ten years after the same event for Conventional Oil. This ten year lag is very interesting for it shows the same pattern of political under-reporting followed by over-reporting registered for Conventional Oil. The same story, happening ten years later.
Discovery
Modelling discovery is also harder, for in 1971 the North Dome gas field was found in the Persian Gulf (shared by Iran and Qatar), totaling circa 1500 Tcf (or 15% of the Ultimate). So Jean took this field out and adjusted a logistic curve to the remaining Cumulative Discovery, which fitted pretty good, and added back North Dome. Modeling it this way the logistic points to an Ultimate over 9000 Tcf; Jean indicates that this number is line with previous assessments that pointed to an Ultimate circa 10 000 Tcf.
Production
To forecast future production Jean added a cycle for Unconventional Gas, with an Ultimate of 2000 Tcf, and two for Conventional Gas: an early one with an Ultimate of 500 Tcf and a peak circa 1980 and another with an Ultimate of 9500 Tcf and a peak circa 2025.
At peak production, All Gas (Conventional + Unconventional) will go over 140 Tcf/y, from the current 97 Tcf/y, an increase of 45% in little more than 20 years. Still, numbers from the IEA or EIA already disagree largely from this assessment, showing that neither of these two institutions is using logistic modeling techniques.
So far so good, right? Wrong. As probably most of TOD readers know, there's no such thing as a World Natural Gas Market, meaning that geographic regions unconnected with gas pipelines must be assessed separately. So does Jean.
North America
This is when things start looking grim. Production is neatly mirroring Discovery with a 23 year lag. This contrasts to Conventional Oil where the production curve doesn't mimic the discovery the same way. While Conventional Oil production at peak will be around 75 Mb/d, the discovery peak went over 120 Mb/d. Natural Gas Production looks like a smoothed version of Discovery, less noisy, but with the same background trends at the same yearly ratios.
Simply put, by 2010 Conventional Gas production can be half of what is today in North America, falling from 20 Tcf/a to 10 Tcf/a. Jean doesn't hesitate to say that shortages will soon occur in this part of the world. Production already peaked in 2001, declining 5% up to 2005, so a downward trend is already there, but will that cliff unfold? Unconventional Gas production has been rising too slowly to avoid the peak, can it avoid the cliff?
Europe
Europe is yet to go over the peak, and up to now, good neighbours (Algeria and Russia) have been helping sending all the gas asked for. Europe will shortly face its dependency; modeling production with an Ultimate of 750 Tcf, Jean shows this graph:
Consumption has been growing at a much sharper pace than Production, which to make matters worse is going into decline.
More good neighbours please.
FSU
Last but not least Jean looks into production in the FSU, the big neighbour. Jean's estimate for the FSU's Ultimate is 2000 Tcf which means a production peak before 2020. Moreover, in spite of a growth up to a production rate of 35 Tcf/y, internal demand will leave by then a meager 10 Tcf/y to export. Finally Jean casts doubts on the will of Gazprom to make the investments needed to ramp up production in the years to follow.
The Importance of Gas
From Jean's work we get to know that both wealthy sides of the Atlantic are heading for trouble. With Peak Oil in site, all we needed was an even sooner Gas Peak. Let's have a look at what Gas means to our daily life.
First of all Gas is a much more effective way to generate heat at home than using electricity or oil products. Electricity is partially generated from Gas; there are losses in transport and losses in transforming electricity into heat. From Oil we have the overheads of transport and refinement. With Gas we just have a little overhead in transport; there are nearly zero losses and no refining.
Secondly Gas is today the best energy source we have to tackle the daily periodic variations in electricity demand. Whilst Coal and Nuclear provide the base energy, they do not allow for the sharp variations in output required when folks start to wake up or when they arrive from work and turn on all of their electronic gadgetry. Take the following graph, showing the supply and demand put to the Portuguese electric grid on a sample period of two days last Spring:
Electricity Demand and Supply on two sample days in Portugal. Red - Coal, light blue - Small Hydro, white - Gas, dark blue - Big Hydro, green - Other Renewable, yellow - Imported (Nuclear), magenta - Diesel Oil, thick black line - Demand.
The electricity generated from Coal keeps quite steady during the course of the day, while Hydro and Gas provide the agility needed to accommodate the variations. During the night cheap Nuclear energy is imported to fill the dams that discharge during the day. Hydroelectric generation is not always possible like this, during the Summer minimum flow has to be maintained and during the Winter maximum flow cannot be surpassed. So the real agility comes from Gas.
The use of Diesel Oil is also possible, recurred to on crisis periods where available Gas isn't enough and direct electricity imports are impossible (such was the case in the morning of the first day). As seen above heat generation from Gas is potentially more effective than from Oil products, making it a cheaper way to generate electricity. When the Diesel power plants are turned on it means that the immediate generating capacity is close to full. These periods are, to my knowledge, still rare. Portugal is probably different from the majority of the other OECD countries, but an interesting case, for every major energy source is used for generating electricity.
Mitigation
Options aren't many; the imminence of the subject makes it hardly solvable with new infrastructure: new pipelines from distant suppliers, new power plants using different sources of energy, more LNG terminal ports and more LNG tankers; they all take time to come on line. This side of the issue has been extensively covered at TOD (here, here, here or here).
We need a gaseous inflammable substance to use in our power plants and to send through the pipelines to our homes. That can be obtained by Coal gasification - what was formerly known as Town Gas. But this option might stump into constraints in the Coal industry, Town Gas might only be the translation of the infrastructure constraints from Gas transport to Coal mining (and gasification).
Still there is some electricity generation capacity from Oil, but it is unlikely that either Europe or North America will be able grow imports much more from what they are now. And of course, for home heating Oil doesn't help much.
The only mitigation option left is Conservation, will it be enough?
Luís de Sousa (fka lads)
The last time we switched gas supplies, from Town Gas to Natural Gas, we changed all of our household burner nozzles to accomodate the different gas calorific value.
I have a belief that it will be different this time. Rather than anerobically heating coal to obtain the gas (and then using the resultant coke for steel production) this time we'll use a pure oxygen entrained flow gasification process to yeild CO and H2 (Town Gas) and ash.
This will produce more gas for a ton of coal but will produce no coke.
Then, instead of changing the huge amount of gas infrastructure we've accumulated since the 60's, what we'll do is use a FT type process to produce methane (aka Natural Gas) with the Town Gas mix.
This will enable us to continue using all of our existing distribution and consumption infrastructure.
I would expect such coal gasification facilities to be based very close to coal import facilities such as the ports at Bristol etc.
I would also expect to see the complete decline of Natural Gas electricity generation. Plus many households may transition onto storage type heating using surplus Nuclear electricity generated during the night.
Of course, that assumes we have the gumption to build new nuclear facilities soon. Which I fear, we may not.
Oh, and we could do with a few million PassivHauses too.
Andy
Empirically it seems to me that changing the nozzles might be less expensive, and it's done just once. Going for methane an EROEI loss would have to be permanently accepted. The problem is that you can't change the nozzles at every place at the same time.
This is a very important observation, though I don't know any system that allows you to do that. Electric companies would have a much easier task if it weren't for the variations on demand from daytime to nighttime. If those curves on the last graph were straight lines instead, a lot of waste would be spared on the switch on/off processes.
This was exactly the problem we had the last time. People aren't allowed to modify or work on gas appliances. It has to be done by an approved technician.
In the 60's there were far fewer users of gas appliances than there are now. The changeover would be immense.
What would drive the decision would be the selling price of the gas. If it is high enough then it will be economical to build FT plants. If not then conversion might be cheaper. Remember what we're effectively doing here is comparing capital costs (for FT or conversion) with ongoing inefficiency costs. History has shown that lower capital costs will win if we can accept the higher running costs. Especially if these can easily be passed on to the final consumer.
There is also another issue with Town Gas. It is very poisonous. The CO content can easily asphyxiate someone if there is a gas leak. Indeed before Natural Gas ovens a common method of suicide was to stick your head in a gas oven and turn on the gas.
With Natural Gas all you get is a splitting headache and you'll maybe pass out, but you won't usually die.
Because of this I think there would be a central government & consumer preference for "safer" natural gas.
That said, I think there is definite scalability issue with this route.
"I would also expect to see the complete decline of Natural Gas electricity generation. Plus many households may transition onto storage type heating using surplus Nuclear electricity generated during the night"
"This is a very important observation, though I don't know any system that allows you to do that."
In the UK there are many common storage heating systems used in houses and flats. Indeed my house used to have a storage type heating system until I ripped it out and threw it in the local dump.
They operate on the priniple of heating up large heavy ceramic bricks and then allowing them to release their heat when electricity is expensive. Unfortunatly they are difficult to control and are ugly to look at.
Mine met their demise due to their age and cosmetics.
I now run direct heat electrical resistance heating. I try not to run it at peak periods.
Andy
What makes them popular of course is the price differential which is about three times higher rate for day vs night electricity usage. And then the underlying reason is that most of the generation comes baseload nuclear and coal. No natural gas in Bulgaria. Hydro is used for balancing, but the need for demand side management to smooth the peaks is also obvious.
Gas is burnt in domestic devices but squirting it through a first nozzle to produce a fast flow, sucking air through an adjacent aperture to mix with the gas by a venturi effect and the passing the mixture through a second nozzle and burning it as it emerges.
In this way you get complete combustion rather than just the hydrogen burning leaving some of the carbon as soot.
The gas air mixture has to emerge from the second nozzle at somewhat higher than the flame propagation velocity in that gas. As the gas spreads out from the nozzle it speed drops to be below the flame velocity. The flame point will stably sit at the distance away from the nozzle that the gas velocity equals the flame velocity.
If the gas emerges too slowly through the nozzle the flame will blow back through it to the first nozzle. If it is too fast the flame front will be too far away from the nozzle and be prone to being blown out by draughts.
I remember our house being changed over. It was done area by area and our house was without gas for about 6 hours while the change was made.
With good pipe insulation the efficiency of such systems can be more than 50% - higher than the efficiency of gasification + F-T conversion. In addition such systems can utilise the waste heat from thermal plants, the fuel maybe waste biomass etc.
With population continuing to concentrate in big cities, I see at least 50% of the households covered by central heating. The main obstacle is that someone will have to commit to spending the huge resources for it, but better do it now, while we are still not pressed to implement partial and ineffective solutions.
Thxs for this very informative keypost. The news is not good, that's for sure. I believe the
best use of natgas going forward is for making fertilizers, not electricity or heat, until relocalized permaculture and full recycling of all possible nutrients is accomplished. This transition to the new lifestyles cannot be accomplished overnight, but will take years to develop.I have posted before that
humans should be quite content with naturally occurring darkness if they understand that this tradeoff means that food and water is still available. This is the best way to reduce postPeak violence levels.The sheer levels of sunlit manual labor required postPeak will make most go straight to bed shortly after sundown anyhow. Recall that I believe 60-75% of the present modern civilizational labor force needs to move in this direction. Fertilizers will be key to farm and garden yields until full organic methods predominate.Vast energy savings can be accomplished virtually overnight if we have the combo of political leadership and citizen will and cooperation. That is why I continue to push for maximum Peakoil Outreach.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm
This led me to vernon's natural gas posts.
regards
http://www.prosefights.org/shattuck/shattuck.htm
What, other than oil and natural gas, form of energy to make fertilizer do you suggest?
This process may not be economic now but there must come a time when rising oil and gas prices make it so.
My concern is that in the future where are they going to get all of the energy [BTUs] required to blast the overburder and coal? And diesel to transport the coal?
http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm#overburden
Its almost impossible to buy glass cups, bowls, etc in the UK now that doesn't have made in Bulgaria, Romania, etc stamped on it.
I'd guess the same is true of the nitrate fertiliser industry too.
So the FSU countries are still exporting the gas, just in value added forms. Which should, in theory, be good for their economies.
Andy
You seem young. You should be dating. Banging girls like Spears. But you wanna get mixed up in this. That makes you crazy.
Other "options" are demand destruction and export of NG-intensive manufacturing processes. We have seen examples of this in the US and UK already, where companies and industries have tmeporarily suspended manufacturing production (ie NG consumption) at times of high prices, or have simply shut down their factories and shifted manufacturing processes to countries with NG in high supply (plastics, fertilisers, etc)
I think we need to look at the composition of demand to understand how much more industrial NG-demand can "offshore" itself, before we get down to the core demand of power generation and space heating
Whether you think that Russian gas will be altogether absent in a couple decades, or that Putin or others will withhold it for political reasons, the simple reaction should be to limit our consumption.
Instead, we push to "liberalize" more, a move guaranteed to structurally encourage investment in gas- (or coal-)fired plants as they are easier and cheaper to finance by the private sector. Insane.
I have yet to hear a politician say we need to use less gas (or less oil).
On the movie "Oil, Some & Mirrors", it is said that today's politicians are mere business men, deciding only on and for quarterly results. That's a remarkable remark.
I'd also note that from Socialists to Christian Democrats, passing through Liberals, the politics are the same: "liberalize".
I have no faith in democratic capitalistic societies to successfully cope with decreasing gross energy supplies.
Their solution is to increase supplies by building pipelines from North Africa and Caspian via Turkey. Increasing number of LNG trains and LNG receiving terminals. It seems like these avenues will satisfy natural gas demands for the medium term barring natural disasters or geo-political crisis.
I'm still trying to understand how a gas crisis in North America will effect Canadian tar sand production.
Does anyone have numbers. Off hand I'd think that NG shortages will probably cause problems.
On a similar vien the thick high sulfur oil use quite a bit of NG for the upgrade process. Agian not sure how much but I'd have to guess its significant.
And finally NG liquids have become a fairly important product in the oil process obviously they will drop as gas production drops.
In North America I assume the response will be to convert to coal for electricity generation. I'm not sure it will be fast enough to prevent shortages though.
Needless to say high natural gas prices will probably cause serious problems for industries that remain in North America.
It sounds like Europe will be right behind North America but its my understanding that Europe does not have the large coal deposits present in North America.
As for the Tar Sands, I've read at TOD comment threads that for each barrel of syn-crude produced 0.7 barrels of oil equivalent are spent in Natural Gas. I'm yet to confirm this from a technical paper, but this is in line with prof. Charlie Hall's assessment of Tar Sands as a net energy looser.
On Coal, in spite of having considerable reserves, the US is importing the stuff, just like it's done here in Europe. Anyway Coal reserves at least in Germany and Britain are still important.
In the end I think the crisis will be felt simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic and I see both competing for the scarce NGL infrastructure.
Hughes_D_OilSands_Boston_2006.pdf
He had this to say:
Let's take those one by one:
- waste issue - a problem with a number of known and readily available solution. What makes it a problem is the NIMBYsm that does not allow to implement them.
- time-to-build - largely a problem because of licensing and NIMBYsm. Otherwise technological plant construction time is only 3-4 years.
- risk - every technology has its risks, and we have always traded risks for benefits.
- energy transmission to sites ??? This problem for nuclear is trivial compared to hydro or wind (per energy produced of course).
- NIMBYsm - speaks for itself.
So 4 from 6 reasons derive largely from NIMBYsm, and the other two are questionable. Now if we want to bet our energy future on such arguments and leave it to coal to fill the gap, then so be it. I just need to express my disagreement every time I am reminded to where this is pushing us.I can accept the possible need for nuclear power and I think that several styles of reactors are safe and feasible.
On the other hand I'd only support reactors as needed if there was a very strong wind/solar program and location of heavy industry near hydro or other plentiful sources. If at that point we still needed some reactors fine.
I'd much rather see a nuclear reactor than a coal fired plant.
But its insane to use a nuclear reactor to make oil. The concept is simply crazy.
I don't remember anyone suggesting that. Renewables and nuclear will start replacing oil indirectly - by electrifying the transportation, displcing natural gas (which can be used for transportation too) etc. There are many options we know of today, and many more will be invented in the course of action.
One thing I'm sure of - if we start a nuclear program today in 10 years we will be more than happy that we did. I'm not holding my breath though.
Its being suggested by many. The oil sands and shale oil require process heat and hydrogen to mine and upgrade the sludge to something you can put in a gas tank, and its sure more reliable than natural gas.
But liquid fuels will have a place for as far as I can see. Electric planes just arent gonna work.
And before someone makes a statement demonstrating failure to understand quantum nucleonic reactions, I suggest starting here for reference. Note that this is not a real nuclear reactor in that the core material ends in a stable state as a non-radioactive isotope of the original element. These reactors are potentially far lighter and safer than full blown nuclear reactors. These reactors shut down safely if the x-ray bombardment source ceases operation. In other words, there is no critical mass here so no runaway process can occur.
These reactors can be (and are) built today for various purposes. It becomes an engineering and political problem to extend them into application realms where they are not yet applied. These reactors would not eliminate liquid fuel usage in aircraft but they would restrict the need for liquid fuel usage to takeoff and landing. All cruising could be done off the reactor's energy.
Likewise, as I have said to others in the past, an easier application of these reactors would be to power rail. The rail application would be far less sensitive to the weight of the reactor (which is still trivial compared to fission reactors) than an aircraft application.
The potential of these reactors is immense, but like every techno-fix, it relies on additional engineering to make the energy deliverable to humans for use.
This is just one of several technical solutions to the energy needs of humanity. The problem is not with science but rather of political and psychological scope. The question is not whether we can solve these problems, because as this idea and others have show, we clearly have the capability to solve these problems. Rather, the question is whether we will choose to solve them before the problem spirals out of control?
Overpopulation and its attendant side effects including peak oil, are mostly problems of psychological and political will, not problems of science.
Let me join these words. Couldn't have said it better.
A little correction on this one I, I think. The article claims:
Seems that in the end we could be doing without liquid fuels at all. Similar technology could be applied in planes if we manage to develop high-capacity electricity storage, but this is a bit of extension.
Second, do you have any idea how hard it is to 'charge' a nuclear isomer? You might as well just make really big aircraft with a conventional fission reactor on board. Its a hell of a lot easier to synthesize kerosene from limestone and water.
Aircraft will be powered by liquid fuels for at least the next century.
I would even prefer having the grids disturbance emergency power source in the form of (an) additional nuclear reactor(s) and quickly disconectable electrolyzers instead of quick start gas turbines. But this only makes sense if the hydrogen is realy valuble. And if it would make sense I would be greedy and want to keep the old gas turbines anyway. :-)
I think it can make sense to provide the hydrogen part of oil with nuclear power, the carbon can be low quality fossil fuel such as coal or tar sand or from biomass.
Why ? It just brings on more global warming.
The point is that Nuclear Reactors used responsibly are not a bad idea adding to the C02 level is not responsible.
If you don't think we are in a heap of trouble start watching this url.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Notice the slope of the graph.
We are adding a new ocean to the planet in the next 5 years.
I respect the work people have done on climate modeling but I'm sorry we really don't know what effect this will have on our climate. This is why I don't agree with crop based fuels we can no longer be certain of the productivity of various regions its to big a gamble.
Using nuclear to produce carbon based fuels is not responsible period.
If we are willing to use Nuclear power to stop this insanity then its not a bad thing.
Finally the best use of nuclear I could envision is to produce solar cells and if possible sell the electricity to subsidize solar cell development. Also of course it can be used to power windmill manufactures.
Eventually of course the plants could be decommissioned.
This approach would limit the time period we needed to use nuclear power.
Adding hydrogen from nuclear power to fossil carbon sources gives lower CO2 emissions then hydrogen manufactured from burning fossil carbon togeather with water vapor.
It is of course a lot better to add hydrogen to carbon from plats since you then syntehtisize fuel with atmospheric carbon withouth a need for building equipment that extract CO2 from the atmosphere.
Finding the best use for nuclear power is not the point, the point is to find manny helpfull uses for global warming, peak oil and healthy economical development in general.
Remembering the ice then, I was dumbstruck by pictures I saw of the ice earlier this year.
It was in around the early '70s when a US Coast Guard ship, accompanied by a Canadian ice breaker, made it through the north west passage. It sparked a lot of controversy over sovereignty. The US immediately declared the passage international water.
It wasn't a huge deal because passage was so difficult. None-the-less, Canada increased its presense in the artic to preserve sovereignty.
This year, with the ice pack receding, instead of the US and Canadian governments panicing over the impact of global warming on the ice sheet, they are back squabbling about the north west passage and sovereignty.
The natural gas situation in North America has been weighing much more heavily on my mind than peak oil. It has been becoming clear to me, and the lead post is very comfirming, that we are going to effectively run out of NG in the near term. For a country like Canada, in particular, that is a disaster. When water pipes in homes and businesses freeze, they quickly become uninhabitable.
I'm afraid North America is going to end up out in the cold. There doesn't appear to be time to fix our problems. North America, the US in particular, is being quickly faced with the 'perfect storm.'
Climate change is being translated into very real economic terms in the insurance industry, which has started in the past two weeks to refuse to insure vast coastal areas of the US. That will further exascerbate the looming housing market crash. The housing market is teetering on the edge due to sub-prime mortgages and unsustainable consumer debt.
The US current account is upwards of 6% of GDP on the negative side. That is coming into range of many countries which have defaulted in the past. Its economy is slowing to a standstill and many are calling for recession as early as next quarter. The Economist is saying it may be put off as late as 2009, but it is coming.
Then there is the energy crisis. In particular, NG for which there is not, and likely won't be a liberal global LNG market, nor is there the LNG capacity in NA to make any difference in the short term.
This time around, NA may stand alone in the severity of its problems. It is "stranded" without too many friends. It may not come out of this recession with the economic resources to be able to share in what is left of the fossil fuels of the rest of the world.
As a economically small country and net energy exporter, Canada is not quite as badly off as the US, but we are tied at the hip economically. NAFTA requires us to export to the US 60% of our production levels of the previous three years. We can't preserve our remaining resources for ourselves. If the economy really tanks, it will be interesting to see whether we honour our NAFTA agreements. On the other hand, with the civil unrest that is sure to accompany severe unemployment and energy problems, it will be interesting to see whether the US comes north to protect us and our energy province.
The tar sands, that's what they were called before they became "oil" sands, remain an open question. Alberta doesn't have the water to develop them fully. Canada's north is semi-autonomous and has a lot to say about a) a NG pipe line from the north, and b) taking all the water that flows to the north.
Like other nations that lack the economic resources to develop such enormous projects, Canada has very quietly entered into to Production Sharing Agreements for the tar sands. It is providing employment (at the expense of other provinces), but the royalty on the oil is only 1%.
Peak oil discussion seems to get the lime light in North America (amongst those who pay attention at all), but it looks to me like peak oil will be but the last nail in our coffin.
Thats what I was thinking. And anyone have the numbers on NG used to upgrade heavy sour oils ?
It must be comparable say half or a third of this number ?
Bullshit. I used to love Stuart.He took me srious for about 5 secs.
Now I gotta pimp this shit.
Whatever. My numbers scan. I just have to re-adjust. I own these islands. You fuckers are so slow.
SNOREFEST
An excerpt from an even longer post I did on my little group yesterday...
So, what is useful?
1. First, of course, we should be avoiding waste in everyway possible.
The adaption to efficient lighting and appliences needs to be publicised, and
let people
know that it is a way to save real money. There is already a major program in
place to
organize this:
http://www.energystar.gov
Every home and business should be encouraged to do this. It staggers the mind
as to how
much could be save if all shopping malls, groceries, and discount stores put in
programs
to reduce electric consumption this way.
2. There should be a major effort to use solar where we know it works best, that
is,
thermal heating of hot water beginning in the south and southwest.
3. On home heating, insulation, weather stripping, and possibly "movable
insulation" on
windows and doors should be a major program at all levels of government, and
social
activism among lower income households. In new housing, ground coupled heat
pumps
should be advanced, improved and implemented wherever it can be done. Housing
designs using earth bermed housing, and passive orientation of houses and
business
should be developed for newly constructed homes and businesses.
4. Use of sewer gas and landfill gas for methane capture is a huge possible
opportunity
and developments should continue to implemented.
As we can see, if the above 4 point program were actually implemented, and
understood
to be a national security and prosperity issue, and PUSHED through information
and
advertising, along with some incentive programs, natural gas consumption could
be held
down with no great pain to the public. But we must begin now, and keep the push
on
even when nat gas prices drop.
As we know from the discussion which began this thread, conservation of Diesel
fuel
waste will now have a direct impact on natural gas consumption, along with
improving our
situation on crude oil, a double benefit. The posibility of great savings do in
fact exist.
Recently WalMart began development of new tractor trailers, setting a goal of
cutting
Diesel consumption bu 15% in the next 3 years, and cutting it in half by 2015
http://www.walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=349
Improving Wal-Mart's fleet-wide efficiency by just a single mile per gallon
could save the
company $52 million a year.
If WalMart succeeds, it puts pressure on all of it's competitors to do likewise.
Essentially,
it will create a situation where the higher the Diesel fuel price, the bigger
the competitive
advantage for Walmart. It also relieves some demand side pressure on both Diesel
fuel and
natural gas.
So back to Diesel. Can it be saved? The creativity of the manufacturers will
have to be
very strong, Recently, the French automaker Peugeot-Citroen showed off it's
newest ideas
for Diesel Hybrids. These are claimed to offer as much as 82 miles per gallon
on Diesel
fuel. Ford and Toyota have discussed similiar designs
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2006/bw20060328_100063.htm
So, we don't really know where we could be in about 5 years. With the
diversification to
Hybrid Electric/Diesels, the increasing production of bio-Diesel fuels, and
advances in
plug hybrid autos, along with conservation of natural gas, the prices may come
to some
parity. But this still leaves the question: Using plug hybrid technology, the
gasoline, CNG
or LPG auto could be as efficient as a Diesel, but without the noise, smoke,
smell, and slow
acceleration, plus the price premium at purchase. The Diesel auto would still
be very
difficult to justify.
My pet is still LPG/plug hybrid, but of course, there isn't enough LPG for
everyone to have
one of those. That's why I am staying quiet, very quiet, about it....maybe I
can do a
custom one, put a big LPG tank in the yard behind my earth bermed passive and PV
solar
house, and sit back and let everyone else howl....:-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Good ideas.
I'd also add one thing.
$5.00 tax per incandescent bulb. Would clean up that inefficiency in a hurry. Every time I move into a new apartment it's always incandescent bulbs (inside the apartment), because the landlord pays for the first lightbulbs but the tenants pay for the electricity. $50 takes care of that, but most people probably don't think of it and lose many times that much in electrical costs, to the detriment of all.
Sorry, I have to totally disagree! ok. I agree with your points, but unless you list list population and immigration as your #1 and #2 priorities, all the savings you mention won't matter because new growth or immigration will consume anything you conserve. You might want to conserve when it's economically practical and saves you money, but not just for conservation sake thinking that this is making the situation better... For anyone who lists conservation without mentioning population is just barking up the wrong tree.
Population is our first problem; conservation second.
Quiz question; which will attract the higher carbon tax per unit? I understand natgas is 80% CH4 but town gas is CO + H2 + other stuff. Personally I don't want it to come back. Electricity from renewables and nuclear is the way to go.
As long as I'm writing this, here's some history, courtesy of Perry's Handbook.
Town gas (called producer gas in a steel mill) - made by blowing air and steam thru a fixed bed of coal, result is only about 100 BTU/1000 SCF because of nitrogen content.
Coal gas (sometimes called town gas too) - made in coking ovens. High heat content, usually over 500 BTU/1000 SCF, depending on the coal used.
Water gas (sometimes called town gas too) - made by blowing steam thru white hot coal bed. You have multiple beds and cycle air and steam. Medium heat content, ~ 300 BTU/SCF, because no inerts.
Modern coal gasification - blow oxygen and steam simultaneously thru some kind of coal bed. ~300 BTU/1000 SCF.
The above are listed in ascending investment.
My guess is that almost pure H2 makes for smaller soot deposits then burning mixed H2 and CO and makes it easier to build a low NOx burner when you dont have to care about soot creation in low temperature/lean mixture parts of the flame.
You do realize that the declining NG will be replaced by coal, don't you?
If CTL and other wonder-laden coal tech ever make a dent in our energy supply, we are fooked.
I think you underestimate our current plight, good professor!
I just don't get the logic here. On one hand people say coal cannot compensate for decline rates of oil and gas, which is why PO is such a big problem. Then on the other they suggest coal will compensate for decline, which is also a big problem - but the complete opposite!
Both cannot be true, so which is it? I want to see the full TOD work up with charts and all ;)
Substituting NG for coal doesn't increase coal reserves, they are what they are. We already burn coal as fast as we can mine it, there is not that much scope to increase production. Peak Coal is reasonably estimated to be in the 2040-2050 range.
I can't see a point where we have so much energy that we will leave coal in the ground. That coal will be burnt up eventually, regardless, sooner or later. Does the timing really make that much difference?
If think in terms of true or false, of course they can not both be true. But like always truth is always in the grey area... substituting NG with coal is the easiest, readily available and immediate reaction we are going to see in electricity generation. Actually the process already started.
Substituting oil with coal is much more problematic, and I don't think we are going to see it on such a large scale.
Like you said - there are limits to coal poduction. There are two "buts" here:
- The limits, especially in the US are largely because of overstrained infrastructure. If, not if - when energy shortages begin all the chances are that the necessary investment in infrastructure will be made. Assuming business as usual of course.
- The coal reserves are truly enormous. We have not even tried to tap the reserves under the sea bed for example. Hoping for the "peak coal" to come and save the day is a devil's game.
At the end coal will definately not be able to replace all oil and NG declines. But we certainly can ramp it up enough to make all fears of climatologists come true. The net result for CO2 emissions will most certainly be increase, especially in the medium term.Yes, that's why I said all fossil fuels. In Europe, carbon caps should limit the CO2 emitted by coal fired plants. Might need acts of civil disobedience to prevent it in Texas.
The european approach reminds me of a totally incompetent boss that is determined to set ever higher targets for each quarter. At the same time he is cutting budget, closes most profitable departments, finances departments that do almost nothing and closes his eyes on his accountants cooking the books.
At the end of each quarter when the actual results of course are tragical he is making up some fake reasons and setting up even greater targets.
Anybody find that picture familiar?
Seems doubtful at present.
EC Worried by Forecasts of Russian Oil, Gas Production
Pretty much the same conclusion got by Laherrère: we are at peak, UK production will collapse hereafter. Jean's graph isn't so grim but still quite worrying. Action is needed now either towards conservation or alternatives.
But I should stress that the outlook for the US is even grimmer that this, with a possible plummet from 10 Tcf/a to 5 Tcf/a on conventional gas production.
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/Newsletter72.pdf
Because our politicians, faced with reality, are panicking and looking for scapegoats to blame for their incompetence and lack of preparedness.
The UK seems to be squared away with Norwegian gas, France with African U - but what about Germany and Italy?
France has Norwegian, Russian, Dutch, Algerian and Egyptian gas, in that order, all under long term contracts.
Germany and Italy have a lot of Russian gas, all under long term contracts, and Gazprom is quite reliable (a lot more than Russia, and a lot more than the Kremlin. Nobody seems to have noted that in early 2006 Gazprom restored deliveries despite the fact that no agreement had been found with Ukraine, and after Putin had been forced into the fray, against his will, to support the brinkmanship of some of his lieutemants against Ukraine). Germany also has Norwegian and Dutch; Italy has Algerian plus quite a bit of LNG.
From eyeballing the ASPO graphs, UK natural gas production will decrease by about 45% from 2006 to 2010. And, by the looks of it, that makes up the majority of the total European fall of 18% in the same period.
So the question is, is there enough extra gas / LNG around to cover this fall?
Peter.