3 Comments

Summary:

The abundance of natural gas in the U.S. was referred to as a game-changer and a black swan event at the Wall Street Journal Eco:nomics conference last week, but what will the effect be in renewables and climate change?

Screen Shot 2012-03-27 at 2.46.39 PM

This post originally appeared on GigaOM Pro (subscription required) our premium research service.

A morning chunk of last week’s Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Conference at the beachside Bacara Resort in Santa Barbara focused on a decidedly less picturesque topic — hydraulic fracking and natural gas.

The conference organizers describe ECO:nomics as a meeting to discuss “profitability, innovation and smarter uses of energy,” and one can’t discuss these areas without acknowledging that a leading vision for a natural gas economy is emerging from major investors like billionaire T. Boone Pickens and top energy CEOs like Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon, both of whom were panelists.

The natural gas vision

That vision goes something like this: While there have been countless revisions to estimates of how much natural gas exists in the U.S., thanks to the massive discovery at the Marcellus shale, it’s a lot more than expected. So much so that folks in the oil and gas industry often refer to the discovery of natural gas in Pennsylvania combined with much better drilling technology that allows explorers to find the source of gas and oil (not just where it’s leaking to the surface) as a black swan event. The Energy Department thinks we have so much that by 2016 the U.S. could become net exporters of liquefied natural gas, with a capacity of over a billion cubic feet day.

These figures approach or begin to exceed the energy equivalent of oil reserves that the Saudis have. Moreover, natural gas is cheap, around 15 percent of the current price of oil. In 1970, 24 percent of oil was imported. Today that number is 60 percent. It’s time to reduce foreign oil dependence and stick it to OPEC.

In fact that last sentence is no exaggeration. In a moment of candor, McClendon said he looks forward to the day he can say “to hell with OPEC.” There’s a patriotic sell to all these arguments, which I confess, I find appealing. I’ve always believed that energy independence is critical to national security. I’d just rather that we start looking to renewable resources, not finite ones like natural gas, and ones that don’t contribute to climate change.

Climate change, what climate change?

What I admire about The Wall Street Journal is that there’s a healthy dose of market realism in all of its dialogue and reporting about cleantech and the energy sector. But in the almost two hours of conversation last Thursday on the merits of moving to a natural gas economy, no one blinked an eye and asked, “What will the impact of a significant move to natural gas be on climate change? Moreover, if we factor the economic consequences of climate change in, what is the true cost of natural gas?”

But all was not lost. Carter Bales, who founded environmentally focused private equity firm NewWorld Capital and who has authored a number of analyses on climate change for McKinsey and Foreign Affairs, stood up and pointed out that “what we have today is low cost energy [natural gas]….which is good. As a consequence renewables are not likely to develop when energy gets as cheap as you’re making it.” And referencing the accumulation of greenhouse gases, he added, “natural gas is half the carbon of coal. When we are burning natural gas, we are cooking ourselves a bit more slowly, but we’re clearly cooking ourselves.”

And that’s where the rub is. Natural gas is often described as a bridge fuel to get us through the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. But it’s clear that for guys like McClendon and Pickens, it’s not a bridge fuel, it’s an abundant natural resource found on every continent that they hope will dominate the 21st century, as much as oil dominated the 20th century.

The impact on renewables

A likely side effect will be that investment in renewables suffers because there won’t be price pressure, like $4 gas ($8 in Europe), contributing to the drive to develop solar, wind, nuclear and biofuels. Given the rapid growth of fossil fuel consumption in India and China, moving to natural gas may not even cook us “slowly” as Bales puts it, but at the same rate or faster since cheap supply will stoke demand.

President Obama endorsed natural gas in the state of the union, a move that former Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who joined Pickens on the panel, described as “an incomparable victory for the [natural gas] industry.” It’s clear that the natural gas charge is happening (Rendell conveyed that in 2007 drillers applied for 71 permits in Pennsylvania. In 2010 that number was 3316).

So I have one request, one that Bales was alluding to. If the U.S. is going to bet the ranch on natural gas, a fuel that research papers show has similar characteristics to coal in terms of its impact on global warming, then the U.S. should make a similarly big bet on financing renewable energy. Because, otherwise, we’re just kicking the can down the road while we continue to cook ourselves. And however fast we cook ourselves, we’re still cooking.

  1. Natural Gas supplies here could displace imported oil in the next 5-10 years. Will renewable energy have the same effect?

    Electricity is made from natural gas and coal for the most part in this country. Increased demand for electricity besides needing more infrastructure just increases power plant demand.

    Put a renewable tax on ng and oil and use that to subsidize renewables.

    Share
  2. Raimondo Barbera Wednesday, March 28, 2012

    Italian tested a new technology that can substitute a large part of domestic consumption of natural gas with renewable biogas processing (domestic) straw and other agricultural waste or not-food biomass.
    See
    HYST Technology: Food and Sustainable Energy from Biomass
    http://www.biohyst.it/contStd.asp?lang=en&idPag=466
    For electricity the renewable solution it’s on the way, and came from … Italy again:
    http://www.kitegen.com/en/

    Share
  3. >>A likely side effect will be that investment in renewables suffers because there won’t be price pressure, like $4 gas ($8 in Europe), contributing to the drive to develop solar, wind, nuclear and biofuels. <<

    We'll $4 gas is likely to be around in the near term because so few autos run on electric or natural gas. Thus, in the market for auto fuel, natural gas is not an equivalent. It is an equivalent for industrial power generation. Renewables (other than biodiesel) only compete in the power generation market. So we may end up with the worst of both world. Lower utility rates may depress the demand for renewalables for industrial power generation but we are still stuck $4 gas … because that's the only fuel that runs the vast majority of our auto fleet.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post