Cheap natural gas is making it very hard to go green

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Clearly, we're ALL GONNA DIE !

This time, it's an overabundance of cheap natural gas that's going to kill us.

Climategeddon is apparently unbeatable.  

And apparently natural gas is the Green Killer that is obliterating efforts to impose "renewable" energy onto the world and destroy the eeeeeeeevil hydrocarbons.

 

https://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/cheap-natural-gas-making-it-very-hard-go-green.html

Cheap natural gas is making it very hard to go green.

It's killing everything, including renewable energy.

We recently noted that the US is drowning in cheap natural gas, and that "Gasmaggedon" will make it even harder to electrify everything. Now we learn from Bloomberg Green that solar and wind power can't compete with gas that's this cheap. Naureen Malik and Brian Eckhouse write:

Gas is such a bargain that it’s being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel, driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future, and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier.  ...

 

... So, in summary,

●  Cheap natural gas is killing renewable energy

●  Cheap natural gas is killing recycling

●  Cheap natural gas is making it hard to electrify everything

●  Cheap natural gas will kill the hydrogen economy

●  And to top it all off, so much of the stuff is leaking that it's not even much greener than coal.  ...
 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Cheap natural gas is making it very hard to go green.

 

I can't disagree with that.

Market forces are powerful - adding a carbon tax would make it less attractive.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Market forces are powerful - adding a carbon tax would make it less attractive.

Hmmm, can't compete, so add a "sin tax" to hydrocarbons to fill government coffers.

Sound about right?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

Hmmm, can't compete, so add a "sin tax" to hydrocarbons to fill government coffers.

Sound about right?

Pretty much, but at least In Canada most will go back to individual consumers (not corporations), or to environmental programs.  Apparently none will go into government general revenue.

This is where the "it is just a wealth transfer" people go nuts... like a wealth transfer is a bad thing. ;)

Edited February 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Bob D + 562]

22 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Pretty much, but at least In Canada most will go back to individual consumers (not corporations), or to environmental programs.  Apparently none will go into government general revenue.

This is where the "it is just a wealth transfer" people go nuts... like a wealth transfer is a bad thing. ;)

Come on!  Money is fungible. 

If environmental programs are paid out of general revenue but instead is paid out of the new 'sin tax', then general revenue increases by the amount that environment programs are paid for with the 'sin tax'.   Americans live this lie with our lotteries.  The claim is lottery revenue pays for education.  But the education budget doesn't increase with lottery revenue.  So lottery revenue ('sin tax') replaces education (environmental programs) in the budget and general revenue increases by the amount of lottery ('sin tax') revenue.

Transfer of wealth is stealing!!

[Bruce Hendrickson + 4]

Natural gas should be promoted by greenies if they really cared about earth’s environment and the humans that depend on it.   It is cheap, the cleanest burning carbon bearing fuel, with the smallest co2 output per btu, and it’s use removes methane, a greenhouse gas with what appears to be around 500 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.   Their tendency to support socialism over capitalism only confirms their true lack of consideration for their fellow humans

[NickW + 2,714]

44 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hmmm, can't compete, so add a "sin tax" to hydrocarbons to fill government coffers.

Sound about right?

If its fiscally neutral then that could be positive. 

Carbon tax reduces employer (and / or employee)  taxes reducing the cost of employing people. I'm not sure what the set up is in the US but in the UK we have employers national insurance which is a significant overhead. 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Bruce Hendrickson said:

Natural gas should be promoted by greenies if they really cared about earth’s environment and the humans that depend on it.   It is cheap, the cleanest burning carbon bearing fuel, with the smallest co2 output per btu, and it’s use removes methane, a greenhouse gas with what appears to be around 500 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.   Their tendency to support socialism over capitalism only confirms their true lack of consideration for their fellow humans

I'd agree but poor management resulting in extensive leaks of Methane wipes out much of the environmental benefit. 

There should at least be  a tax on fugitive emissions and flaring so as to incentivise produces to capture the gas that is otherwise lost / burned. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Pretty much, but at least In Canada most will go back to individual consumers (not corporations), or to environmental programs.  Apparently none will go into government general revenue.

This is where the "it is just a wealth transfer" people go nuts... like a wealth transfer is a bad thing. ;)

"Wealth transfer" is a euphamism for theft.

Socialism is theft, pure and simple.

 

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

For a renewables transition I don't see many better options than NG for peaking and backup power.  Yes, batteries will soon take over on super-peaking, but for a mix of reliability, flexibility, and relative cleanliness NG is great.

Renewables have killed coal and they'll make a big dent in oil before we see any real reduction in NG consumption.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

^ Natural gas is currently one of the best choices for energy in many parts of the world.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

"Wealth transfer" is a euphamism for theft.

Socialism is theft, pure and simple.

 

All taxation is a form of wealth transfer - Capitalists tax plenty.

You want something like libertarianism or anarchy?  Every road is a private road or toll road?  No "greater good?"

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

All taxation is a form of wealth transfer - Capitalists tax plenty.

You want something like libertarianism or anarchy?  Every road is a private road or toll road?  No "greater good?"

 

 

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

I can't disagree with that.

Market forces are powerful - adding a carbon tax would make it less attractive.

 

You want to add a carbon tax to Natural Gas to make it less attractive, and to redistribute wealth.

I disagree on both points.

Here, how about a new slogan ...

Tax the Socialist Leaders!

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

In the spirit of cheap/abundant gas ...

North Dakota just released December' s numbers.

Gas production remains at >3 Bcfd levels.

 

Pennsylvania is in the process of uploading December's production.

Quick sample of some of the eye popping wells ...

Chessy's 2 Amcor wells in Wyoming county (#s 2 and 3) have produced 11 billion cubic feet combined in 100 days - each - online.

Deremer wells in Bradford county (#s 2 and 4) have produced 10 1/2 Billion cf combined with ~114 days online each.

Deremer 4 flowed 61 MMcfd in Sept. and Amcor 2 flowed just under 60 MMcfd in November and December.

While these are record breakers, it is quite routine for wells in Northeast PA (NEPA) to flow well in excess of 20 MMcfd their first year online.

Looking slightly beneath the surface, the completely-below-the-radar Utica/Point Pleasant development in Pennsylvania continues apace with the Tioga/Westmorland counties' step outs continuing to impress.

 

In a somewhat related topic, the application of micro/small/mid scale LNG hardware and processes continue to evolve. Low, low pricing clearly is hampering the upstream boys, but their pain is a bonanza to all downstream consumers, power plant operators/electricity consumers at the forefront.

100 years of ample, cheap supply might be a starting point for all who have an intetest in these matters.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

23 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

You want to add a carbon tax to Natural Gas to make it less attractive, and to redistribute wealth.

I disagree on both points.

Here, how about a new slogan ...

Tax the Socialist Leaders!

Maybe eventually - if it were up to me nat gas would get an exception for at least a while, as it is the cleanest hydrocarbon we use.

I would, however, put heavy fines on leaks and flaring. If you are going to dig it out don't waste it.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I can't disagree with that.

Market forces are powerful - adding a carbon tax would make it less attractive.

A carbon tax is cheating. Mandating that everybody pay to finance an ineffective power solution doesn't actually make the solution effective. 

IE: Consumers are still going to pay more, or profits will be less. Significantly less, as I demonstrated a while back with how cheap power is with gas. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Meredith Poor + 895]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

We recently noted that the US is drowning in cheap natural gas, and that "Gasmaggedon" will make it even harder to electrify everything. Now we learn from Bloomberg Green that solar and wind power can't compete with gas that's this cheap. Naureen Malik and Brian Eckhouse write:

Gas is such a bargain that it’s being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel, driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future, and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier.  ...

 

If someone had read the entire Bloomberg article, they would have seen a mention of $55 billion in renewable energy investments in 2019. The article mentions that it creates 'difficulty', but it isn't stopping renewable energy investments.

The laws in some countries (and states) are mandating 'zero carbon' or 'negative carbon'. As these countries continue to build out infrastructure, gas use will drop further even if it's cheaper. Such demand reduction will lower the price for those actors continuing to use gas in some capacity.

[George8944 + 128]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Cheap natural gas is making it very hard to go green.

I basically agree with this statement.  However, people taking that opinion are motivated by profit and running a successful business.   For a die hard climate-change mindset, it's not about money.  It is about saving the planet.   Fossil fuels could be free and they would still be rejected.

Should a deep green-weenie become President this is an easy problem to solve.  Obama through money at renewable energy projects, giving them the edge over traditional sources.  That was then, and we are deeper in debt now.  The President and Congress only needs to levi a tax to change the playing field.  It's how governments interfere with free markets.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Damn it! I am so confused now. I thought converting to natural gas...WAS GOING GREEN!

Apparently ‘green’ only relates to wind turbines, solar energy, and (wait for it...wait for it...) unicorn farts!😂

Ron is going to be pissed off....

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Pretty much, but at least In Canada most will go back to individual consumers (not corporations), or to environmental programs.  Apparently none will go into government general revenue.

This is where the "it is just a wealth transfer" people go nuts... like a wealth transfer is a bad thing. ;)

A wealth transfer from the user of the natural gas and the electricity it produces to solar and wind companies to finance their inferior products. That is my opinion. Let the free markets decide. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, George8944 said:

I basically agree with this statement.  However, people taking that opinion are motivated by profit and running a successful business.   For a die hard climate-change mindset, it's not about money.  It is about saving the planet.   Fossil fuels could be free and they would still be rejected.

Should a deep green-weenie become President this is an easy problem to solve.  Obama through money at renewable energy projects, giving them the edge over traditional sources.  That was then, and we are deeper in debt now.  The President and Congress only needs to levi a tax to change the playing field.  It's how governments interfere with free markets.

The fact is that natural gas is the best solution. Not using it creates more problems than using it. Wind turbines and solar panels are ugly, create waste that is pollution in itself, use huge amounts of energy to produce, and take up far more real estate. They also waste a lot of money that could be more wisely used. Renewables should compete on their own, not because of false beliefs that they are greener now. They cannot stand on their own. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 hours ago, Bob D said:

Come on!  Money is fungible. 

If environmental programs are paid out of general revenue but instead is paid out of the new 'sin tax', then general revenue increases by the amount that environment programs are paid for with the 'sin tax'.   Americans live this lie with our lotteries.  The claim is lottery revenue pays for education.  But the education budget doesn't increase with lottery revenue.  So lottery revenue ('sin tax') replaces education (environmental programs) in the budget and general revenue increases by the amount of lottery ('sin tax') revenue.

Transfer of wealth is stealing!!

Illinois has received many millions of dollars for gun permits, concealed carry licenses etc. It is virtually impossible to check on why nothing gets taken care of on time. It turns out that almost all the money was transferred to the general fund, and not used where it was promised to go. That is just typical for governments.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/14/2020 at 3:14 PM, Geoff Guenther said:

For a renewables transition I don't see many better options than NG for peaking and backup power.  Yes, batteries will soon take over on super-peaking, but for a mix of reliability, flexibility, and relative cleanliness NG is great.

Renewables have killed coal and they'll make a big dent in oil before we see any real reduction in NG consumption.

Renewables are still a very small player. Natural gas did the job of killing most coal but coal is still a factor and more natural gas plants are needed. The mayor of Los Angeles has said no more natural gas plants. I think he will back off because his advisors say it is not workable. He wants only renewables. It will be fun to watch. I do not expect to ever see Los Angeles operate without natural gas, even though they don't need much for heat. They use it on all their buses however. That was the best move they ever made but now they want to switch to , more expensive, electric buses. That will be interesting to see. 

Germany has as much wind and solar as anyone but they are planning to use coal for many more years. They are also planning on using all the natural gas they need. Mostly from Russia because their land is too pure to hydrofrack. 

Edited February 29, 2020 by ronwagn

[Meredith Poor + 895]

17 hours ago, George8944 said:

Should a deep green-weenie become President this is an easy problem to solve.  Obama through money at renewable energy projects, giving them the edge over traditional sources.  That was then, and we are deeper in debt now.  The President and Congress only needs to levi a tax to change the playing field.  It's how governments interfere with free markets.

Of course, Obama has been out of office for about 4 years. We're still deeper in debt, greener or not.

[George8944 + 128]

On 2/15/2020 at 3:39 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Of course, Obama has been out of office for about 4 years. We're still deeper in debt, greener or not.

You do realize I wasn't making a political statement about either President, right?  I was simply pointing out how governments can interfere in the free market.  They can either tax one side or give away free money to the other side.   Both have political advantages, but few economic advantages for the tax payer.