NOT: Energy Giants To Bring Greener LNG To The Market

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

OilPrice just posted a new article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Energy-Giants-To-Bring-Greener-LNG-To-The-Market.html

This LNG is not "green" at all. It's still a fossil fuel, and every molecule of fossil CH4 that is burned adds CO2 to the atmosphere.  What they are doing is consuming less fossil fuel in the process of compressing the LNG. Very commendable and all that, but it's still part of the process of pumping carbon out of the ground and adding it to the atmosphere. I did not see a mention in the article of how much fossil carbon is saved by the efficinecy gains, but I very much doubt it's more than 10%, so this stuff is "only" 90% as dirty as current LNG.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Right, let's just throw in the towel, see how the world does on nothing but solar and wind and a big lithium-ion battery that requires nickel, zinc, cadmium and cobalt. 

I mean, the world has gotten so dystopian in every other way--surely we can do without prescription medicines, pacemakers, surgical equipment, airplanes, most cars and trucks, and, most of all, plastics in any form. 

Well, there you go: a perfect world. Sitting in a cave, contemplating your navel.

Somewhere between Exxon flaring 9 BILLION BTUs of methane off the coast of Guyana and zero carbon emissions is a # that the world can be happy with. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

Gerry, I'm not complaining about the increased efficiency of compressing LNG. I think it's great. NG and LNG are a great advance over coal, and US LNG provides Europe with a measure of energy independence from Russia. My only complaint is with the use of the term "green" in this context.

In my perfect world, I'm not doing any of those things, and I don't agree with them. Big batteries are useful for short-term intra-day peak-shifting, and that saves money for all types of generators. Using big batteries for long-term storage cannot be made to work, so it's not part of my perfect world. My perfect fantasy world would have fusion power only and point-of-use nanotech adaptive manufacturing and recycling.

Now back to reality. Since I think that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming, and I think anthropogenic CO2 increases atmospheric CO2, I feel that we should shift away from fossil fuels. I think the way to do this is to shift to using wind and solar to power the grid when possible and to produce methane (renewable CH4) with the excess electricity. This CH4 can gradually replace fossil CH4 (natural gas). This permits a seamless and fairly rapid way to get to 100% renewables. We already have a complete infrastructure in place for transport and long-term storage of CH4 and for turning it back into electricity.

Yeah, the need for crude oil producers to flare (or worse, vent) NG is a big bad problem, But it's an oil production problem, not a NG problem per se.

[markslawson + 1,058]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

This LNG is not "green" at all. It's still a fossil fuel, and every molecule of fossil CH4 that is burned adds CO2 to the atmosphere. 

That's quite right but LNG is cleaner than coal and natural gas piped to Europe from Russia or tapped through an extensive pipeline network in the US is better than LNG as it hasn't been compressed. In fact, the switch from coal to gas for power generation in the UK and the US (still ongoing) has reduced emissions in those countries, although the US is withdrawing from the Paris agreement. Sure its still a fossil fuel but while we're waiting around for the  battery/hydrogen/wind/solar/pumped hydro revolution if and when it occurs its probably the best we're going to get. Nuclear is another option but that's hardly going to happen overnight and there is still a lot of opposition to such plants. Take gas, be happy, and just be thankful the lights will remain on.   

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

18 minutes ago, markslawson said:

That's quite right but LNG is cleaner than coal and natural gas piped to Europe from Russia or tapped through an extensive pipeline network in the US is better than LNG as it hasn't been compressed. In fact, the switch from coal to gas for power generation in the UK and the US (still ongoing) has reduced emissions in those countries, although the US is withdrawing from the Paris agreement. Sure its still a fossil fuel but while we're waiting around for the  battery/hydrogen/wind/solar/pumped hydro revolution if and when it occurs its probably the best we're going to get. Nuclear is another option but that's hardly going to happen overnight and there is still a lot of opposition to such plants. Take gas, be happy, and just be thankful the lights will remain on.   

Yes, NG is currently the very best short-term solution, and more efficient/"greener" compression makes it better. Furthermore the economics increasingly favor new wind and solar over existing coal and even over new NG generation. I'm not complaining about the increased efficiency. I'm complaining about the insinuation that this LNG is not a fossil fuel.

You are also correct that pipeline NG is more energy efficient than LNG. This argument is valid wherever the two have equally reliable providers. It may be a good idea to use LNG from a reliable provider rather than pipeline NG from a less-reliable provider. Better yet, have a lot of long-term storage and fill it using the lowest-cost NG.

My hope it that as wind and solar get ever cheaper they will be overprovisioned so as to make money during higher percentages of the time. This leads to more and more "spare" electricity that cannot be sold or short-term stored, and this "spare" electricity can be used to make CH4 from atmospheric CO2, gradually displacing fossil CH4.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

OilPrice just posted a new article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Energy-Giants-To-Bring-Greener-LNG-To-The-Market.html

This LNG is not "green" at all. It's still a fossil fuel, and every molecule of fossil CH4 that is burned adds CO2 to the atmosphere.  What they are doing is consuming less fossil fuel in the process of compressing the LNG. Very commendable and all that, but it's still part of the process of pumping carbon out of the ground and adding it to the atmosphere. I did not see a mention in the article of how much fossil carbon is saved by the efficinecy gains, but I very much doubt it's more than 10%, so this stuff is "only" 90% as dirty as current LNG.

America has made the greatest improvement in lowering CO2 and REAL air pollutants than any other large nations all the while keeping energy prices much lower. IMO this is a pretty ideal situation. 

The main problem with fossil fuels, aside from coal, is that they don't seem to be profitable right now because they are so abundant and nobody wants to subsidize them like all the solar plants, wind turbines, and electric cars. All those subsidies create a false economy based on false claims. Those false claims are based on subsidies, new power lines, and lack of proven results. All that ends up with higher prices to the consumers. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

I'm sorry but I find most of this talk about green energy one of the most ridiculous things in my life. Get real!

We are in the midst of a pandemic that is, in some way, a form of biological warfare. Lockdown caused global shutdown, which has put millions of people out of work all over the world. Federal reserve banks everywhere are frantically printing money in a new experiment under the guise of Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that no one really has to pay that back. But they do. So by the time the cephaloproptosis is cured, every currency is going to be horribly debased--especially the global reserve currency, which is of course the U.S. dollar. 

The digital yuan is a reality--it had its coming-out party while we were fighting the Wuhan flu. There is talk of backstopping it with gold on the old Bretton Woods ratio. If that happens, the gold-backed digital yuan will become the new reserve currency. China is ascending, the rest of the world descending . . . . . mostly because of a virus from China, merely the last of many.

I fear that a great depression is coming. I think that we're going to have to divert all the resources we can muster to food production and getting our people--all over the world--to the other side of this broad chasm. I suspect we're living in parallel universes, you and I. You're talking about converting the world to an energy form that we mostly don't need in order to satisfy a (probably false) idea that global weather changes are due to carbon dioxide while I think we have a perfectly good long-term and cheap energy supply in overwhelming abundance. 

I should have staying in my bunker (with Archie).

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

9 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I suspect we're living in parallel universes, you and I. You're talking about converting the world to an energy form that we mostly don't need in order to satisfy a (probably false) idea that global weather changes are due to carbon dioxide while I think we have a perfectly good long-term and cheap energy supply in overwhelming abundance.

Yes this is the crux of our difference of opinion. You think that anthropogenic CO2 is probably not a major cause of global warming, or that global warming is probably not a serious problem, while I think that anthropogenic CO2 is probably  a major cause of global warming, and that global warming is probably a serious problem.

I further think that the probabilities are such that it's not worth the risk even if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong and we pursue a "green" energy policy that ends up costing more, we all end somewhat poorer. If you are wrong we end up with cheaper energy on an unlivable planet.

Being an optimist, I'm hoping that green energy will end up costing less than fossil energy, in which case we are all somewhat richer even if global warming is not a real issue. For people in urban areas, fossil fuel pollution is a huge health problem, completely separate from global warming.

Of course, what we really need is nuclear fusion to come in like the tooth fairy and solve all our problems.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

21 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Right, let's just throw in the towel, see how the world does on nothing but solar and wind and a big lithium-ion battery that requires nickel, zinc, cadmium and cobalt. 

I mean, the world has gotten so dystopian in every other way--surely we can do without prescription medicines, pacemakers, surgical equipment, airplanes, most cars and trucks, and, most of all, plastics in any form. 

Well, there you go: a perfect world. Sitting in a cave, contemplating your navel.

Somewhere between Exxon flaring 9 BILLION BTUs of methane off the coast of Guyana and zero carbon emissions is a # that the world can be happy with. 

Industrial chemicals will continue to trend toward biotech. Especially now that the CRISPR legal battle was resolved and licensing is no longer a risk. Most of the decarbonization schemes I see are targeting ~2050. It's all biotech by then. 

http://www.bioeconomycapital.com/bioeconomy-dashboard

[Wombat + 1,028]

22 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Right, let's just throw in the towel, see how the world does on nothing but solar and wind and a big lithium-ion battery that requires nickel, zinc, cadmium and cobalt. 

I mean, the world has gotten so dystopian in every other way--surely we can do without prescription medicines, pacemakers, surgical equipment, airplanes, most cars and trucks, and, most of all, plastics in any form. 

Well, there you go: a perfect world. Sitting in a cave, contemplating your navel.

Somewhere between Exxon flaring 9 BILLION BTUs of methane off the coast of Guyana and zero carbon emissions is a # that the world can be happy with. 

Actually, we don't need so much petroleum based plastic. There are plenty of alternatives.

 

12 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I'm sorry but I find most of this talk about green energy one of the most ridiculous things in my life. Get real!

We are in the midst of a pandemic that is, in some way, a form of biological warfare. Lockdown caused global shutdown, which has put millions of people out of work all over the world. Federal reserve banks everywhere are frantically printing money in a new experiment under the guise of Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that no one really has to pay that back. But they do. So by the time the cephaloproptosis is cured, every currency is going to be horribly debased--especially the global reserve currency, which is of course the U.S. dollar. 

The digital yuan is a reality--it had its coming-out party while we were fighting the Wuhan flu. There is talk of backstopping it with gold on the old Bretton Woods ratio. If that happens, the gold-backed digital yuan will become the new reserve currency. China is ascending, the rest of the world descending . . . . . mostly because of a virus from China, merely the last of many.

I fear that a great depression is coming. I think that we're going to have to divert all the resources we can muster to food production and getting our people--all over the world--to the other side of this broad chasm. I suspect we're living in parallel universes, you and I. You're talking about converting the world to an energy form that we mostly don't need in order to satisfy a (probably false) idea that global weather changes are due to carbon dioxide while I think we have a perfectly good long-term and cheap energy supply in overwhelming abundance. 

I should have staying in my bunker (with Archie).

Stop hyper-ventilating Gerry, the crises nearly over for the West, unlike China. There will be no Depression, at least not for another 5 years. Debts may be at record highs, but interest rates at record lows. Electricity is becoming cheaper, oil and gas very cheap, food is cheap, cars are cheap, if homes become a bit cheaper for a while, that will help the economy too.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

22 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Right, let's just throw in the towel, see how the world does on nothing but solar and wind and a big lithium-ion battery that requires nickel, zinc, cadmium and cobalt.

No way. Batteries are for short-term storage only, and new batteries without cobalt are FINALLY being produced, not just talked about. Lithium is abundant: the shortages were a supply/demand mismatch when demand increased abruptly. Not sure about nickel, cadmium, and zinc. Batteries are currently more cost-effective than peakers even if no renewables are considered, but battery storage for more that about 4 hours is cost-prohibitive.

The glorious 100% renewable future just does not work without a viable long-term storage component and a viable transition plan. My personal hobbyhorse is the use of the existing NG infrastructure, since it already supplies all the long-term storage we will need for decades. I think the fastest and simplest plan is to gradually replace the NG (i.e., fossil CH4) with CH4 produced from renewable electricity and atmospheric CO2.  CH4 can also continue to be used directly allowing a longer transition of the 150-year-old municipal gas systems with their hundreds of millions of customers. CH4 is also a perfectly good feedstock for most chemical production, and it can be used to produce fuel for vehicles like airliners that cannot be replaced by EVs.   (And then we can all sit in a circle and sing kum-by-ya without having to give up our luxuries!)

[Wombat + 1,028]

36 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

No way. Batteries are for short-term storage only, and new batteries without cobalt are FINALLY being produced, not just talked about. Lithium is abundant: the shortages were a supply/demand mismatch when demand increased abruptly. Not sure about nickel, cadmium, and zinc. Batteries are currently more cost-effective than peakers even if no renewables are considered, but battery storage for more that about 4 hours is cost-prohibitive.

The glorious 100% renewable future just does not work without a viable long-term storage component and a viable transition plan. My personal hobbyhorse is the use of the existing NG infrastructure, since it already supplies all the long-term storage we will need for decades. I think the fastest and simplest plan is to gradually replace the NG (i.e., fossil CH4) with CH4 produced from renewable electricity and atmospheric CO2.  CH4 can also continue to be used directly allowing a longer transition of the 150-year-old municipal gas systems with their hundreds of millions of customers. CH4 is also a perfectly good feedstock for most chemical production, and it can be used to produce fuel for vehicles like airliners that cannot be replaced by EVs.   (And then we can all sit in a circle and sing kum-by-ya without having to give up our luxuries!)

Dan, there are just 2 problems with your vision. First is that green methane will never be cheaper than natural, and second is that you leave no room for H2 economy. Not everyone wants an EV. Most likely, there will be hybrid H2 + battery cars in the future. Much more convenient.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

42 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

we can all sit in a circle

Six feet apart. 

Dan, more methane gas is emitted by the Siberian permafrost and methane mounds than could ever be vented. 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Wombat + 1,028]

44 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

No way. Batteries are for short-term storage only, and new batteries without cobalt are FINALLY being produced, not just talked about. Lithium is abundant: the shortages were a supply/demand mismatch when demand increased abruptly. Not sure about nickel, cadmium, and zinc. Batteries are currently more cost-effective than peakers even if no renewables are considered, but battery storage for more that about 4 hours is cost-prohibitive.

The glorious 100% renewable future just does not work without a viable long-term storage component and a viable transition plan. My personal hobbyhorse is the use of the existing NG infrastructure, since it already supplies all the long-term storage we will need for decades. I think the fastest and simplest plan is to gradually replace the NG (i.e., fossil CH4) with CH4 produced from renewable electricity and atmospheric CO2.  CH4 can also continue to be used directly allowing a longer transition of the 150-year-old municipal gas systems with their hundreds of millions of customers. CH4 is also a perfectly good feedstock for most chemical production, and it can be used to produce fuel for vehicles like airliners that cannot be replaced by EVs.   (And then we can all sit in a circle and sing kum-by-ya without having to give up our luxuries!)

We do not need a 100% renewable future, we just need 70-80% renewables, and we need it fast. By 2035 at the latest.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

green methane will never be cheaper than natural

Precisely. It just won't happen. We still need oil in this old world. We are down to the"gassy" oil. In order to get to oil, the methane gas has to be dealt with. Guyana just put the choke on Exxon for venting 9 B BTUs of methane. What is Exxon to do? Well, duh! Run it through an LNG train and take to wherever. 

LNG is going to be so cheap it's unbelievable. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 minutes ago, Wombat said:

We do not need a 100% renewable future, we just need 70-80% renewables, and we need it fast. By 2035 at the latest.

70% may be a stretch without long-term storage, but maybe not. But that's OK, because to get to 70% you will still need the CCGTs, which means you still need the NG infrastructure. As you push the wind and solar up from there, The amount of "spare" wind and solar electricity will increase. This excess electricity can be used to make CH4. This natural progression will eventually replace all of fossil NG with non-fossil CH4.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

41 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Dan, there are just 2 problems with your vision. First is that green methane will never be cheaper than natural, and second is that you leave no room for H2 economy. Not everyone wants an EV. Most likely, there will be hybrid H2 + battery cars in the future. Much more convenient.

There is plenty of room for the H2 economy. E==>CH4 is actually E==>H2==>CH4. Wherever there is demand for H2, it will in almost all cases be better to meet that demand directly instead of progressing to CH4.   The extreme example of this is in the production of ammonia.

Your hybrid car would more likely use a fuel cell than a battery, since the H2 engine means the vehicle already has H2 storage and handling.

E==>CH4 is only cheaper than NG when the electricity is a free byproduct: electricity that would otherwise be curtailed You build the wind and solar capacity to make money purely on direct sales of electricity. By the time you are hitting 70%, you will be curtailing quite a bit during the various high-supply/low-demand portions of the year. You must either throw that electricity away or find a use for it. Here in California, we already have a few oversupply situations (mid day in the Spring)  where the electricity price went negative: we had to pay the other utility to take our electricity.

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

70% may be a stretch without long-term storage, but maybe not. But that's OK, because to get to 70% you will still need the CCGTs, which means you still need the NG infrastructure. As you push the wind and solar up from there, The amount of "spare" wind and solar electricity will increase. This excess electricity can be used to make CH4. This natural progression will eventually replace all of fossil NG with non-fossil CH4.

The excess electricity COULD be used to make CH4 but it WON'T be used for this purpose because it WILL be used to produce H2. Let's have a friendly bet on which tech will be significant within 5 years? No money. Just the loser admits "Yes, you did tell me so"?

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

There is plenty of room for the H2 economy. E==>CH4 is actually E==>H2==>CH4. Wherever there is demand for H2, it will in almost all cases be better to meet that demand directly instead of progressing to CH4.   The extreme example of this is in the production of ammonia.

Your hybrid car would more likely use a fuel cell than a battery, since the H2 engine means the vehicle already has H2 storage and handling.

E==>CH4 is only cheaper than NG when the electricity is a free byproduct: electricity that would otherwise be curtailed You build the wind and solar capacity to make money purely on direct sales of electricity. By the time you are hitting 70%, you will be curtailing quite a bit during the various high-supply/low-demand portions of the year. You must either throw that electricity away or find a use for it. Here in California, we already have a few oversupply situations (mid day in the Spring)  where the electricity price went negative: we had to pay the other utility to take our electricity.

Yes of course the hybrid car would have a fuel cell (which provides electricity). A H2 powered car is essentially an EV, so adding a small battery for short trips makes a lot of sense given that electricity so much cheaper than H2.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

11 minutes ago, Wombat said:

The excess electricity COULD be used to make CH4 but it WON'T be used for this purpose because it WILL be used to produce H2. Let's have a friendly bet on which tech will be significant within 5 years? No money. Just the loser admits "Yes, you did tell me so"?

No bet. The market for H2 will be served first, and we will keep pumping NG out of the ground and burning it until the H2 demand is satisfied. This E==>H2 will replace the current NG==>H2, which is currently an enormous market because of the ammonia market, which in my opinion will continue to be bigger than the vechcle H2 market will ever be. This is the most efficient way to reduce demand for NG. But the wind and solar buildout will continue as it becomes cost-effective to replace an ever-higher percentage of immediate electricity demand, and eventually this will saturate the H2 market. That is when the extra H2 will be used to produce CH4.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

32 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Here in California

Ah, so that's the problem. 

Thanks. I won't try to reason with you now.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Precisely. It just won't happen. We still need oil in this old world. We are down to the"gassy" oil. In order to get to oil, the methane gas has to be dealt with. Guyana just put the choke on Exxon for venting 9 B BTUs of methane. What is Exxon to do? Well, duh! Run it through an LNG train and take to wherever. 

LNG is going to be so cheap it's unbelievable. 

Yes, NG will continue to have very low cost because it is a byproduct of oil production. This will eventually kill pretty much all non-oil NG production as long as those gassy oil fields are used. But how long will oil be used?  That depends to some extent on the ICE/EV cost tradeoff, and to some extent on whether the world buys into the greenies' belief that anthropogenic CO2 contributes to global warming. Your free or even negative-cost NG will compete with free or even negative-cost E==>CH4.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

On 6/16/2020 at 12:40 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

OilPrice just posted a new article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Energy-Giants-To-Bring-Greener-LNG-To-The-Market.html

This LNG is not "green" at all. It's still a fossil fuel, and every molecule of fossil CH4 that is burned adds CO2 to the atmosphere.  What they are doing is consuming less fossil fuel in the process of compressing the LNG. Very commendable and all that, but it's still part of the process of pumping carbon out of the ground and adding it to the atmosphere. I did not see a mention in the article of how much fossil carbon is saved by the efficinecy gains, but I very much doubt it's more than 10%, so this stuff is "only" 90% as dirty as current LNG.

If you are offended by the use of the term "green" in reference to this LNG process, then you should also be offended by the use of the term "green" for all the sham, scam, hyped up so called "green" techs. None of them are green in any way shape or form. Batteries, solar , wind, none are "green" , at more than one phase in their life cycle they all consume massive amounts of fossil fuels to be put into existence.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Agree wholeheartedly with note directly above. 

If you want to get shocked out of your loafers go check out just hoe much energy goes into the production of "Green" energy. 

I'd be surprised if there is any net decrease in fossil fuel expenditure.

There.is.no.free.energy. And never will be. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

No bet. The market for H2 will be served first, and we will keep pumping NG out of the ground and burning it until the H2 demand is satisfied. This E==>H2 will replace the current NG==>H2, which is currently an enormous market because of the ammonia market, which in my opinion will continue to be bigger than the vechcle H2 market will ever be. This is the most efficient way to reduce demand for NG. But the wind and solar buildout will continue as it becomes cost-effective to replace an ever-higher percentage of immediate electricity demand, and eventually this will saturate the H2 market. That is when the extra H2 will be used to produce CH4.

That will take at least 100 years Dan. Your nuclear fusion dream is more likely to occur by then.