Natural Gas Now Viewed as Safer Bet

[phantom power]

Natural gas may be having its day, as its rival energy sources come under a cloud.

The serious problems at the nuclear power plant in Japan have raised new doubts about the safety of nuclear energy. New exploration has yet to resume in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s blowout of a BP oil well. And coal plants have been under a shadow because of their contribution to global warming.

Meanwhile, natural gas has overcome two of its biggest hurdles — volatile prices and questionable supplies. In large part because of new discoveries in the United States and abroad that have significantly increased known reserves, natural gas prices have been relatively low in the last two years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/global/22gas.html

[rurallib]

1. What about that little fracking problem

that pollutes the groundwater?

[phantom power]

2. Water pollution doesn't cause people to collectively freak out the way radiation does.

Neither does the prospect of climate-induced species bottleneck.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Oh, I don't know…

It seems to freak people out where I live…

[howaboutme]

6. If it is in someone else's backyard that's all that counts.

What pollution? Unless you live in a fracked (or is it spelled fxcked) area most don't see it as an issue .. yet. Unless you use a well for drinking water it isn't on your front burner .. yet. Watch "Gas Land". We need to focus on developing solar and batteries and other sustaining sources and others while looking at the total impact. Usually politics and dollar benefits override everything instead of reality. Ethanol being an example.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Frack Baby, Frack!

[Marblehead]

4. it will take

some time before the water to NYC is undrinkable. Until that happens there is money to be made....

[deminks]

5. C'mon baby light my tap water.

nt

[kristopher]

8. Natural gas > route to renewables // Nuclear > route to more nuclear

The issue of fracking is a serious legacy from the Cheney presidency that we need to address as soon as possible. It isn't the totality of natural gas production and supply, however, and even after we (somehow) move legislation through Congress to put the burden for proof of safe operation on a tightly regulated industry there will be sufficient supply to meet our needs for the transition to renewables.

If we pursue nuclear power, it is setting the energy course in that direction for at least a century. We see how strong the resistance is to change once the massive capital investment in nuclear has been made, so nuclear cannot, as many of its supports attempt to portray it, a short term way to transition to a more sustainable energy system based on renewables.

Natural gas is.

We largely already have the generating capacity in place to do what would be required to support large scale use of variable technologies, so our efforts should be focused on two things:
1) pressing for immediate legislative action to dismantle President Cheney's energy policy and replace it with legislation that brings an empowered EPA to the forefront in regulation of natural gas extraction.
2) A policy that unambiguously establishes a firm national commitment to a complete transition to renewable energy beginning yesterday - that should include pricing carbon in some manner.

Natural gas is an enabling technology for renewable power.

By itself it cannot power the nation, but it is precisely what is needed to "fill in the holes" that our present large scale system leaves. We run nuclear and coal as hard as we can** and when they have to shut down unexpectedly (as happens pretty often), or we need to ramp up to meet spikes in demand, natural gas generators have the right operational characteristics for the job.

Those same characteristics are no less important for renewables; especially in the middle stages of deployment when we are starting to shut down large coal generators. As more wind, solar, geothermal etc come online the "holes" in the system that exist will steadily diminish. A carbon price can ensure competitors with the same operational characteristics that make NG useful - such as biomass, bio-methane, bio-diesel, geothermal, wave/current/tidal and storage - are able to move into the market.


The greatest fear of the nuclear industry is that people will come to understand that there *is* a viable way to move away from large-scale centralized thermal generation in a rapid, cost effective manner.

They will try to demonize any and all technologies and policies that make that transition possible.

Fix the flawed policies that allow natural gas operate like an outlaw industry.

Build renewables.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150


**The capacity factor (CF) of a generating unit is a measure that compares the actual amount of electricity produced over time (say one year) to the maximum amount that would be produced if the plant runs full capacity 100% of the time. So a plant that is designed to produce 100 units over a year, but only produces 80, would have a capacity factor of 80%.

The nuclear power plant operators in the US are proud of the fact that they have pushed the CF of their plants to about 93%.

One of the ways they do this is by running past maximum rated output to compensate for the times they must shut down.

One of the lessons of Japan comes from this. Their fleet of reactors has a capacity factor that, before Fukushima, was just nudging above 80%. Nuclear enthusiasts here explain that as being due to their need to shutdown frequently due to earthquakes. That is true to a point, but it only justifies a fraction of the difference. The real reason IMO is that compared to the US, the Japanese are fanatics about maintaining their equipment properly. Again in comparison to the prevailing US ethos, as a culture they are completely dedicated safe operation of their entire infrastructure. Bridges there are not rotting; roads that are crumbling are repaired promptly. They are not perfect, and they are subject to human greed and folly just like anyone else. BUT - THE PHILOSOPHY THE PUBLIC JUDGES PERFORMANCE BY INCLUDES PLACING A HIGH VALUE ON QUALITY - INCLUDING MAINTAINING QUALITY OVER TIME.

Think about that as you ponder the pride of the US nuclear plant operators in their 93%+ capacity factor.


One final note. The use of capacity factor as a measure of the "best technology" is a frequent red herring designed to deflect attention from a wide array of very important considerations that score poorly for centralized thermal generation. Large scale centralized thermal generation refers to systems that burn fuel to heat water to produce steam to run a generator. Coal nuclear and natural gas all have the potential for high capacity factors. Since wind and solar both have significantly lower capacity factors, this is the favorite point of attack by those supporting Republican energy plans.

What that attack ignores is that actual capacity factor a system operates under is as more a function of the designed system of the grid than an unchangeable characteristic of how a grid must be operated. It is entirely possible to design and operate a grid with a combination of technologies ALL having low operational capacity factors.

Simply comparing capacity factors alone tells us nothing of value until it is placed in proper context. If you want to compare which carbon free techs are best, the way to do it is to look at the result of the full formula where CF is used - the final price of electricity that the generator produces.

And, if transitioning to a carbon free economy is important to you, you'll also want to compare how long it takes to start producing electricity.

[phantom power]

9. Renewables > more NG // NG > climate change

I must admit, this economic format of argumentation pleases me!

[kristopher]

10. Please explain these variables you have ignored

Wind and solar are less expensive than natural gas now, and the price advantage will continue to grow.
This is a guarantee of something; what is it?

Nuclear power, should it be deployed on the scale needed to address climate change, will soon deplete the high quality ore that form the basis for its estimated carbon emissions of 66gCO2e/Kwh. What that means is that there is a guarantee that carbon emissions associated with nuclear will rise.

The physics of refining tell us that soon (when judged by the 60-100 year nuclear plant lifetime) the carbon emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle will rise to the level of natural gas - about 400-450g/kwh.

So instead of a carbon emitting energy source placed within a renewable system of declining carbon emissions, we would be economically locked into a system of escalating carbon emissions.

[phantom power]

11. Here goes...

Wind and solar will always need a strategy for addressing their variability. NG is clearly shaping up to be the first major strategy. We all know what the impacts of NG are. Any strategy that reduces the need for NG will increase impacts and expenses in some other dimension (If you name a strategy, I will name the impacts and expenses).

Since nuclear energy operates at a healthy energy surplus, and its fuel has an energy density on the order of 10,000 times that of coal, there is absolutely no reason that nuclear energy can't supply the energy to refine and recycle nuclear fuel. Or support a thorium breeding fuel cycle.

So, no. There is actually no basis for claiming that a nuclear energy economy will require fossil fuels as input. In just the same way that, eventually, a renewable-energy economy will have to supply the energy to procure and refine its raw-materials. Right? Because the whole point is that eventually we aren't using fossil fuels for anything. One way or another: We either dispense with them voluntarily, or they run out on us.