Natgas prices are even more likely to shoot up than those of oil in the next few years. And CNG is not even very energy efficient.
Go for plug-in hybrid school buses. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Further, 20 % of American power is generated by gas. This can be cut without problem. Home heating can also be repalced with alternatives. This will free up vast amounts of gas to fuel vehicles. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
This can be cut without problem
What is the policy that targets natural gas for being eliminated from the electrical power supply?
Replacing of a substantial share of home heating with geothermal-assisted heat pumps, that I can see if supported by substantial Connie Mae financial support to finance the higher up front cost out of the energy savings ...
... but it seems the first priority in a strong program to increase sustainable renewable electricity supply should be retiring coal-fired power, and I am curious how a policy of eliminating gas-fired power is compatible with that first priority. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And in terms of the first priority, every BTU of wind that displaces natural gas is a BTU that could have displaced coal, for much better reduction in GHG emissions ... so until all mineral coal power production is taken off line, I don't see the appeal of a plan that keeps coal on line so that natural gas can be taken off. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
First, remember that there is a lot of base load (!) gas power in the US. Second, a robust continent-sized HVDC grid (which you'll need to get all that "stranded wind" to the consumers) should smooth out the intermittency. And for those days when that isn't enough, the gas plants are still there and can be fed a little gas until the situation rights itself.
When it comes to coal you can replace it with nuclear, MW for MW and BTU for BTU.
And I don't worry terribly much about GHG emissions. Peak oil is my bogeyman. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
But that only answers half the question ... why replace the lesser of two evils in terms of fossil fuel electricity while leaving the greater of two evils alone.
It does not answer the second half of the question ... how to rig the policy so that it is, in fact, natural gas taken off line, when on in a pure commercial calculation, expanding wind power increases the appeal of natural gas turbines compared to thermal coal. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
For the second half of your question, the policy is simply a blanket ban on building new coal plants or upgrading the current ones in such a way that they consume more coal. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Nuclear is inflexible and will have a hard time replacing gas in the peak role. But it works in the baseload, and I did write that nuclear should replace coal, not gas.
And among the non-renewable energy sources, gas remains a more natural complement to wind than either nuclear or coal.
The second half of the question is how to rig the system to force out natural gas. Any policy that successfully promotes wind will differentially push out coal rather than natural gas, so channeling the displacement from coal to natural gas requires an additional policy intervention. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
thermal coal takes much quicker to ramp up
Thermal coal takes much longer to ramp up. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
With conventional natural gas in decline in Canada, the US and Mexico, and in Canada and the US, at least, seeming to be heading rapidly toward break-even on EROI, will the gas shale be able to take up all of the conventional production decline? I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
But the fact is that while the gas shales have been known for decades, everyone has been terribly suprised at how thing have developed during the last year or so.
Exploring and drilling for oil is by its nature an uncertain and unpredictable affair, and gas is even worse. The extent of resource is not known. Depending on a host of different factors the size could vary by one order of magnitude.
But one thing is sure (IIRC): these shales are drilling intensive. Decline rates can be very high in an individual well, at times up to 50 %. So you need to drill new wells all the time.
Hey, maybe I should buy some shares in US onshore drillers? ;) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Or, in other words, we know next to nothing as to whether it can replace conventional natural gas as it plays out, or whether it will be a flash in the pan. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Such is life. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you say that shale natural gas requires constant drilling, then its best case EROI has to be below the best case that was experienced with conventional natural gas. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Somewhere I've read that while conventional gas is like pushing all the air out of an air matress, shale plays are more like, well, farts. ;P Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If they are going to be flashes in the pan, there are going to be a lot of very disappointed companies out there. Coverage in the local press indicates productive lives of over 10 years for these fields. Rework of a field is less expensive, as it involves reuse of the original vertical shaft. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Thanks for the link to the IC Corp. hybrid buses. They appear to be available. If each bus traveled 20,000 miles per year and got 10 mpg, with diesel at $4.50/gal. a 100% improvement in mileage would provide a $4,500/ year fuel savings per bus per year. Helpful, but only a small fraction of the cost to replace the bus.
I have no idea of the age of our local bus fleet, but would think this might be the way to go for replacements. Part of the problem will be that diesel buses will become, if they are not already, a drug on the market. If they still have substantial value there could be a race to see who can trade their diesels in before the price collapses.
As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
