A recent spate of coal mishaps shows that coal is still by far the dirtiest fossil fuel on the market. Recent events in Europe and China's rise as an economic power show that the world is in desperate need of a clean, attainable energy source free from corrupt influence. Coal obviously is not it, nor is gas from the Kremlin. Burning coal produces actual pollutants, not just inert non-toxic CO2 like natural gas. The US has a distinct advantage in the technology and personnel needed to tap the world's onshore ultra-tight oil and gas plays. This will have a long-term impact on the differences between the US and other economies.
Yep. Natural gas is my homeboy. By far the best fuel source available to us now. Vs. petrol/coal, the extraction process is safer and cleaner, its emissions are fewer, its energy production capability is greater, it is geo-politically convenient, and it is the most economically viable. This is the fuel source that we should ride until we hit sustainability with renewables.
On the flip-side, during our January polar vertices, gas prices went from ~$5 or so to over $100 in some northeastern hubs, and power prices went from $50-ish/MWh to over $400/MWh in day-ahead markets, and to $2,000+/MWh in some realtime 15-minute intervals because when the demand got its highest, the gas pipeline capacity was insufficient to provide adequate supply. There were also mechanical failures in the pipelines caused by the extreme cold. Meanwhile, the remaining coal power plants (that didn't have their own weather-related outages) could truck in as much coal as they needed, and the wholesale price never spiked. Just like you want to diversify your stock portfolio to protect yourself from idiosyncratic risk, our country should diversify its energy portfolio to minimize risk. I that natural gas is great and has been great for the country. But, I also see other fuels being overly-marginalized and I worry we'll end up with an over-reliance on gas. I want to see an energy portfolio that features renewables and gas, but keeps a seat at the table for clean coal and nuclear as well.
Obviously you want to support NG with alternatives, especially renewables, but on the flip of the flip-side, couldn't it be argued that this price inflation is because of the lack of infrastructure to extract, refine, and deliver gas at this point? We're only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of setting ourselves up to use NG vs. coal/petrol, that has a several hundred year jump on NG. And going beyond that, I think it should be noted that short-term, rare occurrences like the polar vortex should not drive decisions with impacts lasting several generations.
I wouldn't use those bad trades as quotes for where the market was really trading at. Yeah you can get crazy spikes for very short periods sometimes, but that's certainly not indicative of the average price of the market.
Right now O&G technology has developed to a point where we can extract gas by fracturing. In a decade or two, the technology will have progressed to a point where abandoned oil fields will be re-opened for production because there will be economically feasible methods to extract the 60+% of oil that was left behind the first time around. So it's not really about riding it until the renewables technology becomes widely usable. It's geopolitically convenient and a bit clearner but that's pretty much the only advantage of it
Gas and groceries should be the focus of every politician. Get the price of energy and food down, no better way to help the poor. Remove any and all impediments to increasing the supply of both.
Yeah, part of it is that we haven't had time to build out the infrastructure yet. The polar vortex 10 years from now will probably have less impact that this one. The point is not the risks posed by polar vortices, but systemic and idiosyncratic risks, generally. The polar vortex was an interesting example of what can happen when things go bad. Next time, maybe a Russian bomb hits Western hub and punches a big hole in the network. Maybe they find out the environmentalists were right that fracking is poisoning our water, and gas prices double on the ensuing regulation. So, I just don't want to be overcommitted to one fuel. I want to produce energy in an environmentally friendly way, but there are risks besides global warming to considered. Electricity can't be stored, so power plants need gas when they need it, and customers need power when they need it. If that means a company has to buy power at a $2,000/MWh spot price because they're short, that's what they do; to do otherwise isn't even an option. That's not a bad trade, that was the going rate in certain intervals in parts of the Northeast. Retailers lost 100s of millions of dollars altogether for something a bit over a week of bad prices (and many generators made that much extra). And these are big companies with good trade desks that hedged conservatively. The point isn't about where the market is at, I quoted where the market is usually at. The point is: what happens when you're counting on something and disaster strikes? In this case, if we were still a coal-heavy power industry, not much would have happened. But, there is some other case out there, I'm sure, where relying too much on coal would have cost you, or too much on nuclear or solar. Diversity is an asset. You can away some of the upside when you're winning, but you mitigate the downside when you're losing.
Nationalized food cooperatives that source local food at affordable or ideally free rates? Expanded research into alternatives? I like where you are thinking!
Not a surprising response from a Ukrainian If Europe would come to their senses they could provide the natural gas they need from shale in Poland and the UK rather than be slaves to their Soviet and Ukrainian gas providers
Ukraine imports gas from Russia too. That is a big part of all the hubub over there right now in fact.
The extraction process is no safer or cleaner. The emissions are, however, cleaner. I'm not sure what you mean by the energy production capability being greater but it is definitely the most convenient alternative to oil/coal. One issue now is that it isn't necessarily an economic option for major oil companies unless natural gas prices are really high. Many sell off gas assets for oil plays with better returns. And, without very costly downstream infrastructure it will not become the hero it's promoted to be.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>New study links fracking to birth defects in heavily drilled Colorado via <a href="https://twitter.com/ajam">@AJAM</a> <a href="http://t.co/4hlaZCWP7w">http://t.co/4hlaZCWP7w</a></p>— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) <a href="https://twitter.com/joerogan/statuses/429293078046724097">January 31, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <iframe src="http://videos.rawstory.com/video/Joe-Rogan-beats-up-Peter-Schi-2/player?layout=&read_more=1" width="416" height="321" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
^^ wow, truly disturbing. That and the exxon ceo litigating to get rid of fracking near his properties makes it obvious the health and environmental concerns are real. But live for today, not tomorrow rigte?
