5 ms·

The future of energy is natural gas. End of story. Alternative natural gas production -- "fracking" generally -- has been researched, prototyped, implemented,

The future of energy is natural gas. End of story. Alternative natural gas production -- "fracking" generally -- has been researched, prototyped, implemented, and grown over the past 15-20 years to the point where one can reasonably envision a future where natural gas displaces coal and crude oil to become the most important energy sources in the world. It emits way less carbon than coal or oil, it is everywhere, it can be liquified relatively cheaply and transported around the world by super tanker, people are less afraid of it than nuclear power, and the technology to actually use it has been around forever. Electricity...home heating...hydrogen fuel cells...all easy with natural gas. As a general rule, when The Economist publishes a 14-page spread about something, it's pretty much hit the mainstream. They did that 2 weeks ago. http://www.economist.com/node/21558432 http://www.economist.com/node/21558432

btipling 14y ago
How much natural gas is there, and how long will it last?
- guscost 14y ago
  The near future of American energy is natural gas. Are you telling me that somebody knows what's going to happen after that?
  - acslater00 14y ago
    Fair enough.
- ktizo 14y ago
  There are maybe 60 years worth of proven reserves if we don't increase demand, at least according to BP in 2009. If that is end of story for the future of energy, then it is a fairly bleak story.
  - brc 14y ago
    All mineral reserves are basically 20-60 years into the future. That's because there is no incentive for a company to go out and find more reserves than it needs. I'm not arguing against you, but using company reserves to predict the future is like using the length of a current employment contract to work out the future of your own employment. If you have a contract for 2 years worth of work, you're not necessarily going to be unemployed in 2 years. There's just no need for you to arrange more work just yet. The same principle is at work with company hydrocarbon reserves. The other curve-ball is changing technology. Many fields that are producing now were considered uneconomic in the past, but improvements in technology change that. All in all, they are a very poor way of judging how much 'stuff' is in the ground. Which is why people, when looking at proven reserves 10, 20, 50 years ago would have concluded that things would have run out by now.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      All mineral reserves are basically 20-60 years into the future. Not true, proven bauxite reserves are in the hundreds of years range. But when it comes to the acceleration of technology argument, I just think that when compared to solar/storage, fossil hydrocarbons will become uneconomic as a fuel source long before they run out.
- Danieru 14y ago
  Lots. We are just now beginning to unlock vast fields. The USA alone has 200 years worth of domestic supply (cite: parent's economist link, not sure if it includes consumption growth). The good news is that hydrocarbons cannot get much shorter without turning into hydrogen. At some point solar will be too cheap to use anything else. Gas is thus an economical holdout until then so we can avoid a Malthusian future.
brc 14y ago
The best thing about shale and coal seam gas is that it is typically domestically produced. This has two advantages for the domestic producer : 1) you're not funding a government that might have a different idealogical bent to your own and 2) higher shipping costs mean that it becomes advantageous to locate production closer to the gas source (or pipelines). Costs for Natural Gas vary widely across the world, depending on supply. A fundamental lowering of energy costs is the best way to get an economy on track because it increases productivity quickly. A fascinating bit of technology that is popping up around the place is microturbines. These take natural gas as a raw feed, and produce power and heat on-site. They are effectively low-maintenance electricity generators with heat re-use (either for heating or cooling). This can isolate a building/factory/whatever from the grid, and provide a very high reduction in energy costs, making the investment decision pretty easy. Capstone Turbine is an emerging player in this market - their website is well worth a peruse: http://www.capstoneturbine.com/ http://www.capstoneturbine.com/ Note: I have nothing to do with them, I just find the tech interesting.
- minikomi 14y ago
  I teach English to a guy who sells these in Japan. Massive boom after the 3/11 quake because distributed power sources are much more resilient to the single point of failure of one. It power plant. He's learning English to make inroads into China.. And it looks to be going very well.
aannnaa 14y ago
Less CO2 than coal or oil is still too much CO2. Natural gas will release about half the CO2 per joule than coal. This is still way too much to have a modern lifestyle and avoid rolling the dice with the earth's climate.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  As an interim solution though, it's still pretty good. It's an easy way to wean people from coal (particularly brown coal) while they figure out how to get solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear up and running. As long as it's not seen as an end in itself - if we stop at gas, we're still doomed.
grecy 14y ago
> The future of energy is natural gas. End of story. Watching Gasland[1] may just change your mind. [1]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/

btipling 14y ago

How much natural gas is there, and how long will it last?

guscost 14y ago
The near future of American energy is natural gas. Are you telling me that somebody knows what's going to happen after that?
- acslater00 14y ago
  Fair enough.
ktizo 14y ago
There are maybe 60 years worth of proven reserves if we don't increase demand, at least according to BP in 2009. If that is end of story for the future of energy, then it is a fairly bleak story.
- brc 14y ago
  All mineral reserves are basically 20-60 years into the future. That's because there is no incentive for a company to go out and find more reserves than it needs. I'm not arguing against you, but using company reserves to predict the future is like using the length of a current employment contract to work out the future of your own employment. If you have a contract for 2 years worth of work, you're not necessarily going to be unemployed in 2 years. There's just no need for you to arrange more work just yet. The same principle is at work with company hydrocarbon reserves. The other curve-ball is changing technology. Many fields that are producing now were considered uneconomic in the past, but improvements in technology change that. All in all, they are a very poor way of judging how much 'stuff' is in the ground. Which is why people, when looking at proven reserves 10, 20, 50 years ago would have concluded that things would have run out by now.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    All mineral reserves are basically 20-60 years into the future. Not true, proven bauxite reserves are in the hundreds of years range. But when it comes to the acceleration of technology argument, I just think that when compared to solar/storage, fossil hydrocarbons will become uneconomic as a fuel source long before they run out.
Danieru 14y ago
Lots. We are just now beginning to unlock vast fields. The USA alone has 200 years worth of domestic supply (cite: parent's economist link, not sure if it includes consumption growth). The good news is that hydrocarbons cannot get much shorter without turning into hydrogen. At some point solar will be too cheap to use anything else. Gas is thus an economical holdout until then so we can avoid a Malthusian future.

brc 14y ago

The best thing about shale and coal seam gas is that it is typically domestically produced. This has two advantages for the domestic producer : 1) you're not funding a government that might have a different idealogical bent to your own and 2) higher shipping costs mean that it becomes advantageous to locate production closer to the gas source (or pipelines). Costs for Natural Gas vary widely across the world, depending on supply. A fundamental lowering of energy costs is the best way to get an economy on track because it increases productivity quickly. A fascinating bit of technology that is popping up around the place is microturbines. These take natural gas as a raw feed, and produce power and heat on-site. They are effectively low-maintenance electricity generators with heat re-use (either for heating or cooling). This can isolate a building/factory/whatever from the grid, and provide a very high reduction in energy costs, making the investment decision pretty easy. Capstone Turbine is an emerging player in this market - their website is well worth a peruse: http://www.capstoneturbine.com/ http://www.capstoneturbine.com/ Note: I have nothing to do with them, I just find the tech interesting.

minikomi 14y ago
I teach English to a guy who sells these in Japan. Massive boom after the 3/11 quake because distributed power sources are much more resilient to the single point of failure of one. It power plant. He's learning English to make inroads into China.. And it looks to be going very well.

aannnaa 14y ago

Less CO2 than coal or oil is still too much CO2. Natural gas will release about half the CO2 per joule than coal. This is still way too much to have a modern lifestyle and avoid rolling the dice with the earth's climate.

anthonyb 14y ago
As an interim solution though, it's still pretty good. It's an easy way to wean people from coal (particularly brown coal) while they figure out how to get solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear up and running. As long as it's not seen as an end in itself - if we stop at gas, we're still doomed.

grecy 14y ago

> The future of energy is natural gas. End of story. Watching Gasland[1] may just change your mind. [1]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/