text:
By Fareed Zakaria
Last year, the world's energy watchdog published a report which asked an important question: "Are we entering a golden age of gas?"
So I was struck when I saw the International Energy Agency's 2012 report. Gone is the question mark.
Instead it says, simply: "Golden rules for a golden age of gas."
And the starting point of that golden age is right here in America.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the shale gas revolution is a game-changer not just for the energy industry, not just for the U.S. — but for geopolitics.
The technology behind shale gas production, where shale rock is blasted with a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, is only two decades old. The process is called fracking.
Related: Fracking — What is it?
And in a short time, its success has led to the drilling of 20,000 wells in America, the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and a guaranteed supply of gas for perhaps 100 years. The International Energy Agency says global gas production will rise 50% by the year 2035; two-thirds of that growth will come from unconventional sources like shale — a market the U.S. completely dominates.
We've become the world's lowest-cost producer of natural gas at a cost of $2 per thousand cubic feet; compare that with many European countries which have to pay seven times as much to Russia.
It's increasingly possible to use liquified natural gas as a substitute for oil as a transportation fuel, so the effects go beyond generating electricity. General Motors is planning to produce cars that can take natural gas or oil in their fuel tanks.
Aside from the advantages to America, shale gas has the potential to change the geopolitics of energy.
So far, gas has been supplied by a handful of regimes — Russia, Iran, Venezuela — many of them nasty and illegitimate, thriving on global instability, which actually helps their bottom line since instability equals higher oil and gas prices.
In the next 20 years, much of this energy could come from stable, democratic countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Poland, France and Israel. That would be good for the free world, bad for the rogues and good for global stability. China has huge shale reserves and, even though it is not democratic, it is a country that seeks stability, not instability.
One problem — there's a significant lobby against shale gas and the way it's produced.
Fracking consumes a lot of water.
Shale production also creates large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas. Sometimes methane pours out of faucets in areas near shale gas production centers, as you can see in this video. Critics also claim fracking can trigger minor earthquakes.
So what do we do?
The good news is these risks are manageable, as the IEA's new report points out. And it has a list of "Golden Rules" to follow — from safety measures to reducing emissions to engaging with local communities.
The IEA estimates these measures would add just 7% to the cost of the average shale gas well.
Many of the riskiest practices are employed by a small number of the lowest-cost producers, a situation that calls for sensible regulation.
Let's figure out how to make fracking cleaner and safer. We can regulate the process with good, simple rules. The benefits are immense and the problems manageable.
Related stories on GPS:
• Assessing American-made energy
This article is mostly industry hype, which means that the reality is far less promising. What about the cost? The glut of natural gas on the market means that it is too cheap to recover the costs. What about the overstated estimates? While the wells decline much more rapidly, the true estimates of recoverable gas are closer to 20 years than 100 years. Why did T. Boone Pickens – once shale gas's biggest cheerleader – dump all of his stock for the second biggest producer?
I agree. It's kinda like GREEN technology isn't it.
No, green technology works fine and my 10kW solar system powers my house and my transportation (I drive an EV). Get a clue.
My system will pay for itself in about 8 total years, then I get free home and transportation power, guaranteed for a total of 30 years, so I get 22 years of free power.
My EV also only costs about 20% per mile of what a puker costs to fuel and maintain.
TechIsReady>> I agree with you in priciple but if you live in a place like Seattle were it is cloudy most of the year those estimates are off. That's why the Chicago area has a huge Air Power system. While a national plan seems like it makes sense, unless you are living in AZ odds are you will still be paying an electric bill for your house and car with Solar.
Butchie67>> It's not really a "Green" technology because while it burns clean it can and does effect the environment. But the cost is about the same as producing gasoline from oil except currently all the mass infastructure exists for oil. Liquidifying natural gas costs money but so does refining oil and producing gasoline.
@Person of Interest,
I have several friends in the Seattle area and their systems are larger than mine, yes, because heavy rain clouds cause only about 50% of rated energy to be produced, and typical clouds make that about 70-85% of rated, but their systems will still pay for themselves in about 11 years, and they will still get about 19 years of free electricity, and those years will allow them to not pay the projected (as it has always been) higher rates as energy gets more and more expensive. The thing that is not obvious to many is that energy becomes more costly over time (at a rate must faster than inflation) and so the savings on the "last 1/2 of the 30 years" are much larger than the savings in the first half.
@Person of Interest,
As a country we have PLENTY of sun resources and residential rooftop space to produce 100% of the 3.4 Trillion kWh that we use as a nation. These are the facts. Look at the 2010 census to determine the number of housing units, and you'll see that if every house had about a 40' x 40' array of solar, we can produce all the energy we use. Of course, we should be using NON-FRACTIONATION collected natural gas for nighttime until the LiFePO4 batteries come down more in price, and then we can use those. Highly recyclable, reliable, safe, and economical. I will be using my old EV batteries for this purpose when they finally have their capacity reduced enough that I want to change them for new ones for my EV, in about 10-15 years.
The economics and technology are ready. The politics of this fact-averse country are not.
So Tech, I have to live in the same house for 30 years to get the benefits of SP? What if I want to move? Also, your EV at present does not compare to the power needed for driving situations outside of going to the store or work. EV's are useless and hybrids are the way to go. EV's are also extremely expensive to repair, and that is a fact. Mechanics hate working on them. Maybe you should be so judgmental towards ppl who dont feel the same way you do.
@The Decline
Though it does sound to me like you're propagating known lies, I'm going to assume that you are just simply ignorant as to the facts and not deliberately misleading people.
The American Realty Association says that sales of homes with solar systems are usually incrementally more than comparable homes in the same area, by an amount MORE than the initial cost of the solar system. So, you can buy it, use it for any number of years and sell the house for an additional value more than your costs.
Besides, as I mentioned, the payback period is more like 6-9 years, so your numbers are absurd after this time anyway.
So, if you want to move, besides your neighbors being happy, you would actually win in this scenario. This might be unusual for you, so you might want to plan for the shock of success.
\My EV is certainly not useless and I've put 15-18k miles on it every year since I got it. It is your opinion on this point that is useless. I have a puker, but I only put 50, and then range extended with Gasoline, or better yet, natural gas. Hybrids are so bad that it takes about 5-6 years just to pay for the incremental costs of the hybrid system. REEVs will pay for themselves due to their lower fuel and maintenance costs.
And no, again, no, electrics are actually MUCH cheaper to maintain. Where do you get these absurd opinions of yours?
And again, no. Mechanics do not "hate hybrids and electrics". Only clueless ones who are locked into a centuries old tehcnology that refuse to learn anything new have issues with them. I know several that would much rather work on EVs, and who do.
The comments functionality mangled my post:
"I have a puker, but I only put 50, and then range extended with Gasoline, or better yet, natural gas"...
I had typed that I have a puker but only put < 3k miles on it per year. To save our economy, we as a country should be using REEVs that gtet at least 50 miles in all-electric mode, and that can then be powered by gas or natural gas for as far as you need to go. This would cause the country to only use 10% of the gasoline we now use, or better yet, an equivalent amount of non-fracked natural gas.
@TechIsReady – my annual electric is around $1,200 (natural gas heating & stove). I am rather skeptical of your 6-9 payback period as this would mean around $7-11k for a comparable solar system installed. Am I ignorant or should I assume that your system has zero anticipated upkeep/repair costs and a 30 year warranty.
Lastly – while you blame uniformed people why do I not have a line of salesman offering such an amazing opportunity knocking at my door. Even better yet – why do I not see more commercial building using the same technology as I would assume they have the most to gain...and I have insight into the commercial energy/infrastructure market and solar is very, very seldom pitched to the companies I work for.
CNN didn't post my first reply, though it did not violate any stated policies. Here it is again in a shorter form.
You actually ask some reasonable questions (mostly).
If your electric bill is small, then your system will be small. I'd estimate from your $100/month use that you are fairly lower-to-middle of the road compared to others. It is likely a 2kW system would do it for you. Installed, this should cost $5 – $5.25 / Watt. So, roughly $10 – 12.5 k.
The reason you don't have sales reps "lining up" is because they are often still getting around $7 – 8 /Watt installed, so they go after the uneducated (in this area).
I really can't answer your question of "am I ignorant or should I assume", but yes, other than a wash-down with a hose about once a year, the system will keep working with essentially zero upkeep/repair costs and yes, they have a 30 year full-replacement warranty. The inverters will probably fail in that time, but perhaps not, but the good news is that they account for only about 4-5% of the system costs.
Unfortunately, the one question that you thought was "Even better yet" was actually your most uninformed one – "why do I not see more commercial building using the same technology as I would assume they have the most to gain". No, no, no. We "Residential" users actually subsidize "commercial" users so they get energy for very cheap. Residential users pay on a tiered rate system (most states, and all with a clue) so we actually pay more per kWh if we use above certain levels (pretty low usage). The power companies made SURE that the rates encouraged commercial users to use a bunch of electricity without any efficiency improvements or desire to go "solar". This was intentional.
Even though commercial users are siphoning off money from us residential users, many who have high energy needs are still seeing economic benefits by installing solar. Look at all the farms and wineries and data centers and ... that are installing solar as a way to save big $.
6- 8 yr payback is simply not doable, even at $5/w.
Just doesn't make sense from an investment standpoint. If you are into green and want to be off the grid then you have other motivations. Keep your money if you think you are going to save a ton with this.
Also, the manufacturing processes for both batteries and solar panels require the use of chemicals, water and processes that are not environmentally friendly. It's like robbing peter to pay paul. Maye worth it, i don"t know. There are some great innovations going on in the solar space that will render today's technology obsolete in the next 5 years.
When I build my house it will be 100% green. I'll be using solar power and own electric cars. Time for me to move on from the old and antiquated use of fossil fuels.
Commercial Users for solar? Absolutely. Look at Ikea, Costco, WalMart, Macy's, Kohls, etc., they've all invested in covering a substantial portion of their rooftops with solar panels.
Hey "TechIsReady"
NO !!! the ONLY Reason your "10kW solar system powers..... will pay for itself in about 8 total years" is because I AM PAYING TO SUBSIDIZE IT !!! (Me and other tax payers !!!) That is the ONLY REASON its even ~close~ to being able to pay for itself !!!
No, I am subsidizing your petroleum addiction. The National Defense Council said in 2002 (when gas was ~$2/gal AT THE PUMP) that the true cost to the consumer was $5.26, so more than double what you think you're paying. Free military security for the oil industry was the main cost, but tax breaks, "discovery" incentives, and many other things added to it as well.
Even without the 40% break I got, my system would pay for itself in around 12 years. Don't forget, the cost of electricity goes up every year so the savings are non-linear. It does not take 40% more time to recover that tax break.
Actually the time to account for the 40% break is less than 4 years, so the total payback time without any incentives is less than 11 years in my case. Go buy a clue.
"6- 8 yr payback is simply not doable, even at $5/w."
Determined that by the feeling of the breeze on your finger stuck into the air, did you? Notice you have no statistics, no data, no formuats, and no factual way of discussing it. I've done all the calculations in intricate detail and can definitively tell you that you are simply wrong. At the minimum. Then again, perhaps you are just lying, or perhaps you're just not the brightest in your pool of the backward-minded.
@TechIsReady- residential customers absolutely DO NOT subsidize commercial power prices! In fact, businesses, especially large industrials, subsidize residential power rates. Power rates are determined by a Cost of Service Study, i.e. how much does it cost to serve a particular rate class. Residential customers are not nearly as efficient with power consumption as industrial consumers are... that's evident in their load factors and loss charges built into rates! I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of power prices, as I'm an analyst in the field...
"Also, the manufacturing processes for both batteries and solar panels require the use of chemicals, water and processes that are not environmentally friendly. It's like robbing peter to pay paul. Maye worth it, i don"t know. There are some great innovations going on in the solar space that will render today's technology obsolete in the next 5 years."
More of the anti-progress propoganda, I see. The LiFePO4 batteries are non-toxic and highly recyclable. Of course, all manufacturing needs appropriate regulation to prevent evil and clueless people from polluting like idiots, but this can be done. Yes, China pollutes a lot when they make panels, except for a few manufacturers, but this too could be regulated. It is not the fault of the technology, but of the regulatory system that it is such an issue.
As far as the "better tech is just around the corner" phantom, I've heard that since the 1970s. The current tech works fine, has a payoff at much less than half of their guaranteed lifespan and I don't care if a newer panel puts out more electrons per square foot. By the time any new tech comes along that makes a large efficiency difference, my system will have already paid for itself. But you just keep waiting for that magic bullet. I really don't care anymore if you want to waste your money. It gives you less resources to propagate your nonsensical viewpoint. Fortunately, enough people now have a clue that we will see large adoption of solar in the next 5-10 years.
@Would You Look At That
@TechIsReady- residential customers absolutely DO NOT subsidize commercial power prices! In fact, businesses, especially large industrials, subsidize residential power rates. Power rates are determined by a Cost of Service Study, i.e. how much does it cost to serve a particular rate class. Residential customers are not nearly as efficient with power consumption as industrial consumers are... that's evident in their load factors and loss charges built into rates! I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of power prices, as I'm an analyst in the field...
More of the BS barrage, I see. Efficiency of use is irrelevant. The only difference in actual costs to the producer is in the line that carries the power directly to the customer from the main power lines. You could argue that residential needs a different call center to handle the public, but this is small amounts.
It's If I pay more per kWh, and someone who uses more pays less, and the cost to produce the kWhs are the same, then I am subsidizing their costs. Their volume in no way accounts for their discount.
@TR, you call or facts, yet you ramble off numbers and speak as the your knowledge trumps all and yet you show no facts. Your loud and long speak is inversely related to the veracity of your claims.
@TechIsReady – a couple of other people are trying to help you understand how the power industry works. It might be helpful to try to understand what they're saying.
"The only difference in actual costs to the producer is in the line that carries the power directly to the customer from the main power lines. You could argue that residential needs a different call center to handle the public, but this is small amounts."
You missed the point. Residentials use power from wooden poles (or even more expensive underground systems) that cover thousands of miles called the distribution system. Commericals use power from fewer wooden poles and more metal poles called the transmission system. Industrials use even less power from distribution and most are exclusively transmission. Large Industrials and Commericals use little to zero distribution system infrastructure but are often at the PUC/PSCs fighting to stop paying for it. Please try to listen.
"It's If I pay more per kWh, and someone who uses more pays less, and the cost to produce the kWhs are the same, then I am subsidizing their costs. Their volume in no way accounts for their discount."
If I buy one can of soda, I pay $1.50. If I buy 1 case, I pay less than half that price. As one of the most capital-intensive industries, the supply of electricity is hugely dependent on how much product is consumed per capital invested. I tried to explain this to you on the distribution side, now let's talk about electrical production/consumption. On the consumption side, as electricity can't be stored, when it's consumed is even more important. In this respect
Efficiency of use, in many respects, IS the issue. Stopping power plants at night and restarting them each day is highly inefficient. As a result decreasing power consumption during the day, and consuming more at night, balances out the grid and will save all of us tons of money. Whether this justifies all the subsidies going on is a topic of debate. But with the consumption side of the equation costing ~75% or more of the total cost on our bills (~50% for residentials, they pay for all the wooden poles, these percentages vary based on the utility infrastucture) the proper time-of-use consumption has a huge efficiency impact. That's why many industrials run multiple shifts or even 24/7. And that's why residentials, who create a big spike on electrical consumption in the mornings when we get up and evenings when we get home, pay more. Go crack open a rate case filing and see for yourself.
Appreciate the lively and courteous discussion. Try to understand what people are saying rather than just blowing them off. Thanks.
It's If I pay more per kWh, and someone who uses more pays less, and the cost to produce the kWhs are the same, then I am subsidizing their costs. Their volume in no way accounts for their discount.
TechIsReady: Dropping knowledge like bombs. They don't bite so hard when you fight them with facts.
@School's in session
"TechIsReady: Dropping knowledge like bombs. They don't bite so hard when you fight them with facts.".
"Thanks, I needed that."
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who can see their Saruman speak. It's really great to know someone else on the comment section gets it. It gives me hope.
@Freedom Lving Dad
I do appreciate that you took your time to try to inform me of the way that the energy grid has been intentionally setup to operate.
You do seem to be a fairly decent person in your tone, but some of the beliefs and opinions you express have been disseminated by some pretty untrustworthy sources, so if I criticize your ideas through saying "them" or even "you", I want you to know that I'm not really attacking you as a person, but the collective group of people who express a very non-forward looking viewpoint that detracts from and delays the changes that are necessary in our energy policy and systems. Ok.
First, eveyone should notice that "we're" now no longer debating the economics of the solar system, "we're" now debating the subtleties of the vast system of smaller wiring that supports those nasty undesirable residential users. One thing that often happens is a desire to shift focus to a new minor issue as though it refuts the stronger, more central truth.
For those of you who are lucky enough to recognize their Saruman speak when you hear it, notice that we're now arguing about "the last mile" of the electrical system (more than a mile of course), which needs to be upgraded over the next few years anyway for the EV/Solar/Wind revolution that they can't stop despite their misinformation campaign. We're not arguing about the viability of the solar panels or the systems, but some esoteric rather minor issue of power pole lines. These are not super-conducting circuits folks, it's really not that expensive to wire things up compared to the 30-years of utility bills or the price of a solar system.
Look, they are wires that will last something like 30-50 years if properly located and installed. Do it right and they last so long, their contribution to system costs/savings is pretty trivial. Don't let "them" fool you.
Since you've seen the level of expertise in the energy/EV area that I've demonstrated in what I've said so far, I have to ask: Do you REALLY think there was anything in your post that I wasn't already aware of? Please.
I'll disassemble your "points" one by one below, but the bottom line is this:
"Freedom Lving Dad", your "argument" claims that the costs to deliver energy (energy is the correct unit because power is energy over time; at any instant you are getting energy, but over the month you get power) to a "residential" customer are more than for a "commercial" user. This is based on two often-false assumptions: Greater Consumption and Consistant Use. The utilities DO NOT give "volume discounts" or "consistancy discounts", they give "commercial" and "residential" rates. They already have all the data they would need to determine who used what, and most of the newer meters can be used to track Time-Of-Use, so they could at least already be charging based on total use (and not penalizing a "high-use" "residential" user while rewarding a "high-use" "commercial" user) and they can in many cases charge based on consistancy (and as meters are changed out this capability is growing).
The point is, they don't even try to base rates on any of that. They incentivize businesses to stay inefficient on "residential" users backs.
Do not worry your pretty little head about these issues, leave them to the companies risking their capital to extract and sell it. It really is none of your concern.
I must say, I'm disappointed in your analysis of the costs of fracking....your piece sounded like an ad for the industry. I've always thought your analysis was trustworthy, but now I wonder. Dig deeper please and get back to us.
So you trust his analysis...until he says something you disagree with. Sounds legit. The plain truth is that hydraulic fracturing is perfectly safe when done in a safe manner, just like anything else. There are regulatory bodies in every state that make sure environmental safety procedures are followed, but accidents happen. Human technology can never be 100% fool proof. When safety regulations are not followed, the offending companies are charged with cleaning it up, correcting the mistake and paying fines. Methane burns 50% cleaner than other fossil fuels and can be an important bridge fuel for the next 50-100 years while we search for ever cleaner sources of energy, if only the NIMBYs would let it. This reminds me of the Anti-Nuclear crusaders in the 70s. "Hey! No Nuclear Power! Even though it is the cleanest form of energy in existance! Let's all follow fear instead of reason and keep those coal fired power plants burning! We'll burn ever increasing amounts of coal to save the environment. That'll work!"
No, when you include the fuel gathering and the waste disposal, nuclear is one of the dirtiest (in terms of CO2 emissions) of all power sources. Not to mention the little issue of enormous waste pools around every single reactor which make PERFECT terrorism targets. Or just leave them alone so they can be problems for about 100k years.
Actually check thormium reactors. It would be the cleanest tech, and best to use. Actually worth alot more than modern nuclear tech.
Bill Gates is right now working with the Chinese to make a new nuclear powerplant that would use the 99% waste of nuclear power.
There is alot of promise in nuclear power.
In every state, at every level of politics, you will find enormous campaign donations from energy companies. In PA, in particular, you will find appointees from energy companies sitting on commissions that formulate local energy policies. You will also find a governor who refuses to tax or charge fees to the energy companies that have overrun our state. Yes, jobs have been created, but at what cost? How do you compensate people whose well water has been poisoned, whose wooded, rural landscapes have been destroyed, and who awake to "alien" fracking sounds every morning. Peoples' rights aren't a priority as long as politicians allow themselves to be held hostage by special interest. Keep politics out of energy policy and maybe we can talk.
Please go to FoodandWaterWatch.org and help us defeat Fracking
What will you replace it with? Solar that doesn't produce 100% most of the day and 0% at night combined with batteries and all of their environmental issues. Wind power whose props kill birds. And how do you replace all the other products, or the jobs?
jlv, solar/thermal systems use molten salt reservoirs to produce power when it is dark. Check out the Crescent Dunes project in Nevada, or Solar Tres is Spain.
I just went to that website. Absolutely loved it. Thank you.
Thanks, Nancy. I, too, live in PA, and have seen the travesty of political spin and industry greed that now governs our state. Puhleese do not try to convice those of us who live with fracking that it is in any way a sane method of powering our future - unless you believe that a scorched earth policy is a good one.
I find it astonishing how this article divides the world in good and bad countries and gives this obviously subjective view as a reason to switch to gas.
Especially that, as an example for an stable country, you name Israel, one of the youngest countries, that has been in a few wars ever since and which still has quite powerful foes.
I respected your unbiased view of things, but the way you present this here leads me to seariously question if I should read more of your news
John, I am actually surprised that zakaria finally gave credit to Israel....one of the most successful countries in the world IN SPITE of being in several wars that the surrounding muslim countries always started and lost.......Israel now has one of the largest natural gas deposits in the world......I have no reason not to lump Israel in with the US, Canada, Australia etc as one of the most stable democracies in the world..........you may need further education......not just what you hear around the way.....
Lets digest your "Commentary" line by line Fact by Fact.
If the problems Caused by Fracking are Mostly beind caused by a few low cost producers, Why Have hundeds of violations been issued to the big producers. If 7% is all that were needed to make Fracking safe and the industry has yet to self regulate. "how can you ever trust producers to Do The Right Thing?
Perhaps a hundred Years worth? Really, then how many years worth do we have when the US begins large scale Export? Who has$ 9,700.00 to pay for the cost to convert a motor vehicle to liquified natural gas? Why dont you talk about how large and energy intensive it is use the giant carbon fiber tank to haul this very explosive gas around?
Do your manageable risks take into account that thousand of Sustainable Jobs that have supported America for hundreds of years that will be either diasplaced or lost forever. Why didn't you mention as Aubry Mclendon did himself when speaking about the fluid of chemicals mixed with millions of gallons of drinking water Fracking Fluid" and I quote "well you don't want to drink the stuff".Then why mix it in our drinking water? As far as all the other manageale risks i'll e-mail you some facts so you can include some in you next in depth "commentary"
So are you mixing it with drinking water after use because of leakage or are you premixing it? Because it looks like you are accusing them of mixing it with drinking water and then just using what they need while leaving the drinking water contaminated for other people. Or is it a case that you are using the fact that they mixture contains water that is not ocean water as a way to prove a point that doesn't exist or maybe you are talking about the movie that was made where they talked to people who are no where near fracking but have natural gas leaks into their well water anyway because nature does waht it does, and where used to make a point that wasn't correct for those people.
You don't understand. The process of fracking release gas that can go up through any newly created cracks and end up polluting people's wells. Unless they can prove that won' t happen they might pollute the groundwater for miles.
Just lost all respect for Zakaria after seeing big wet kiss to natural gas industry. The City of New York has banned hydrofracking anywhere near the reservoirs and water sources that supply the city because they know the risks of hydrofracking are far too great to risk. NYC can afford the lawyers necessary to keep hydrofacking at bay. But in the small towns of PA and Upstate NY, where water wells are being poisoned, roads are being wrecked, ER departments are busier than they can handle, and crime is rising, they can't afford to battle Big Gas. See the film "Gasland." We can do better, America. Gas companies and legislators will fail to regulate. We've seen it again and again. Watch and see. This will be a massive catastrophe driven by profits. Nice work, Fareed.
A big fat wet kiss it was. It was not a report, but an ad, a simplistic, glorified ad with no hard questions asked. Clean water in this century will be far more valuable than gas. Skip this, dirty on all levels, hydrofracturing industry and get on with renewables and conservation, truly a much more creative challenge for forward thinking, innovative Americans. The gas in the shale will be there forever. There is no big rush to extract it except to make a few rich and the rest poisoned..
Sandsco: Yes and No on the gas will always be there. Note the line Zakaria utters that there is nearly/approximately "100 years of natural gas available." That's true, but in any exploration process, the remaining XX percent is increasingly difficult to extract. So, the hydrofacking crews might run wide open for a while, but in time it will become more difficult, dirty, and expensive to get the last of it. That could happen 50 percent of the way in, or far sooner. Multinationals and our legislators are lazy and driven by greed. Instead of innovation and conservation, they go for the easy money. So sad.
Funny everyone runs to and points to "gasland" a movie that used peoples stories that had nothing to do with fracking but in the history of moral panics their stories were sensational so just like the side saddle gas tank where they had to put a bomb under the car to make it a news worthy explosion, they threw those people in to make a point. Oh their stories are true but they are not connected to fracking other than being in the same state.
Well, there is in fact a big rush to make most of the shale gas opportunity. The renewable energy technologies, and Solar in particular are developing by leaps and bounds. The days of fossil energy are numbered and those guys are bent on extracting every penny out of it while they can. Just visit this webpage:
An idea for the problem of fracking and methane getting into the public water supply would be for an independent non oil company to make a consumer gas extraction unit. The gas extraction unit (a simple system) could be easily setup to remove and store the "FREE" methane/natural gas at your house. This "FREE" gas could then be used to heat your home, run a generator, cook your food, etc.... This is a great thing to happen actually, because now those lucky ones to have that gas in their water can benefit from it. I wish I had that problem, because I already have a solution that would save me money. Hey energy companies, come near my house and do some fracking so I can harness that "FREE" gas.
By the way, this is a patentable idea, so have at it.
Not only are you not the brightest bulb in the pack, but your filament must have broken before you were even plugged into your socket.
Did Fracking cause the "MINOR" Italien Earthquakes? Some evidence in favor. 2 Dozend people dead. Maybe CNN can investigate & REPORT on it.
Perhaps fracking is also responsible for Fukashima.
Good post, jlv!
You make note of the protests against fracking but of course aren't intent on their true concerns: threats to local water and quality of life and indeed a threat to health for people and animals, the inevitable failure of the wells which cannot be controlled, methane, although mentioned, which is contributing to global warming at a geometrically accelerated rate over what CO2 could ever do, the ruination of watersheds that are crucial for survival of major metropolitan areas and last but not least the gutting of Clean Water and Air regulations as they relate to Fracking which has been done already and is not being recovered. One of the most serious impacts of Fracking and the eagerness to 'go this way' globally is that alternative energy alternatives may not get the focus they need to progress at a good rate. Fracking is not a panacea any more than the tar sands abomination is. Choices all have consequences and fracking does indeed have consequences. You breezily show the methane leakage issue, as an example, by showing someone lighting up their kitchen water tap. If only it were so simple as that. The methane that is 'leaked' is not incidental, and we need to understand what we are doing. Practically everything about the article glossed over valid concerns and realities with no counterbalance. It all sounded wonderful didn't it without that balance on the issues. Do you at all understand that the shale layer protects the environment from radioactive pollution from below and that in doing extensive fracking and then experiencing the inevitable well failure that WILL occur that we will be releasing this into the environment as well. Then there's the issue of the massive use of a chemical mix into the well at the beginning along with the water needed to get things going... Millions of gallons of water all mixed with these chemicals and brought back up and splashed into a retaining pond at each site. This has to go somewhere and the 'cleanup' of this stuff, or even understanding what's in it (since the mix is proprietary and not disclosed) is not regulated and is a real threat to our health. I worry as well that the shale layer is not truly understood. It contains microorganisms and may actually be a resource to protect the environment since microorganisms are one of the best ways to clean up pollutants in a benign way... so lets just destroy this structure without having any understanding? PA has the Endless Mountains where a lot of fracking wells are being drilled willy nilly (over 10,000 so far). What I see is Endless Destruction of a wonderful, beautiful area. This is not pie in the sky.
Thanks for pointing that out, it is an important point to keep in mind as the companies move ahead. It is to bad no one is EVER accountable for the long term damage when there are limited regulations.
Your piece on natural gas exploration called fracking was extremely biased in favor of the oil and gas industry's desire to get as much shale fracking as quickly and cheaply as possible. You barely made mention of the consequences that injecting large amounts of chemicals into groundwater has on the residents living on and around those regions. I propose that you interview people involved in attempting to regulate the industry. Unfortunately the EPA is experiencing large budget cuts precisely because the industry does not want to be regulated. The government officials who are supporting the fracking ventures do so with an eye on supporting short-term profit, and not on the long-term effects such a practice would produce: irreversible contamination of groundwater, immeasurable health effects such as cancer long into future generations, pollutions of air, death of humans and animals, and erosion of farmlands.
Interesting, very interesting
Additionally, low natural gas prices would contribute to lowered corn fertilizer costs ( Ammonia fertilizer is created from natural gas).
Lowering the cost of domestic corn production could help reduce the cost of ethanol made from corn.
corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides. It is a joke and only exists because politicians are scared of farmers and people are ignorant. corn subsidies are a 10 billion dollar a year handout to farmers and it is counter to free market capitalism.
So farmers should live at the behest of the corporations that buy their product and return to poverty like they were back in the 1800's, t?
It's a handout to the big agribusinesses (Conagra and ADM come to mind) much more so than to individual farmers.
Brazil is also becoming a major energy power – http://www.brazil-economy-and-markets.blogspot.com. We are democratic country too!
I respect Brazil for being a hard-working country that is not afraid of technological progress. You've got a good space program going on down there, too!
I second the poster above me. But cutting down rain forest to plant sugar plantations to feed cars doesn't strike me as the right way to go about it.
You seem to be glossing over the many serious concerns that many have regarding fracking. This editorial, from a West Virginia newspaper outlines many of our concerns. http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206090058 One of our concerns is that natural gas does not significantly reduce production of green house gases. While the burning of gas produces less C02, the extraction of it releases these green house gases.
http://www.insideindonesia.org/weekly-articles-91-jan-mar-2008/un-natural-disaster-13011650 to give a preview of a reckless gas mining
"So far, gas has been supplied by a handful of regimes — Russia, Iran, Venezuela — many of them nasty and illegitimate, thriving on global instability, which actually helps their bottom line since instability equals higher oil and gas prices." ??? It was during the "nasty and Illegitimate" Bush administration when oil executives took power to "thrive on global instatility" driving the price or a barrel of oil above the $100 mark.
"Nasty and illegitimate" Bush administration? Extreme much, Truvenezula?
Bush admin was voted in twice by the majority of Americans....so no, they cannot be illegitimate like the iranian regime....
On 5/30 Joe Romm at Climate Progress provided a much more thorough analysis of the IEA report that Fareed mentioned. Mr. Romm took the time to read the whole report, which noted that natural gas does not really offer a long term solution to the challenges of climate change which we are facing. Read Mr. Romm. And then suggest that Fareed have him on his show instead of oil and gas 'experts,' who are really boosters, like Daniel Yergin.
It is interesting that the vast majority of these comments really spend time speaking to hydraulic fracturing and the risks associated with it as opposed to the global energy equation and how to continue moving to a reduced carbon footprint by a managed roadmap. I guess my question revolves around how many of these comments are made with a true, understanding of hydraulic fracturing technology? How many of us realize that this very mature technology has been utilized for over 60 years in conventional oil wells? A data point – more than 2 million around the world. I guess each person must find it interesting to sit and bash Mr. Zakiria's video all day long on your electronic gear that is powered by coal or natural gas or Nuclear – how many watts did you burn which in turn were put on the grid by coal? By Gas? By Nuclear? Are you aware of how nuclear waste is handled and stored/disposed of? Really? What about Coal Slag? At the end of the day, the world needs many forms of energy – from Hydrocarbon to Renewable – unfortunately if we really honestly look at the demand vs availability, renewables are not the complete answer to the equation, yet.....natural gas, can be one step in a roadmap to a reduced carbon footprint. Does the development of natural gas from shale have risks, yes – undoubtedly – but I would make an educated guess that major operators will prudently manage these developments – with the immense amount of focus on this topic and their need to ensure they do not cross regulatory lines as the DOJ and EPA as well as local DEQ agencies are spoiling for fine revenue and headlines – beyond the fact that most developers/operators have their people living in the community where they are developing resources – how many of them do we think want their children to drink water that is not safe or breathe air that could cause harm? For those who quote "harm and death to animals", "contamination of ground water", etc...these topics are of concern for all of us – absolutely – it would be interesting to have a very fact/data based discussion relative to operators who practice good well design, installation and monitoring – I would chance to say that these operators don't have the same issues that smaller fly by night operators have created in the past – when we were not as aware of the risks. Having noted this, if this "death plume" is to be a topic of debate, perhaps folks could provide specific examples and refrain from generic fear mongering. At the end of the day, risks exist in all industries – being a responsible company, using developed best practices and working with local communities, industry can move shale gas development forward in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
The denuclearization of South Asia (Subcontinent) particularly India is imperative.
Quid pro quo transfer of nuclear technology by USA to third world countries such as India needs to be opposed on moral grounds. Billions of people live in that neighborhood and would be at risk from such catastrophes which I am sure the American people would not like to be a party to. We are all well aware that that region is prone to floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and of course terrorism placing such nuclear installations at tremendous risks. US Congress is urged to reconsider and cancel all the agreements for the transfer of such technologies due "Force Majeure".
Are you kidding? We need India to help contain China. The only countries that should be de-nuclearized are Iran (immediately, before they build a Bomb and use it), and then maybe North Korea.
This article is spot on, whether you want to hear it or not.
Amen, J-Dog.
At last a fairly rational article on an important topic with no axe to grind and yet admits to certain issues, like methane intrusion into water sources, that need to be addressed. Fracking chemicals do have to be disclosed however and regulated under the Clean Water Act since no one keeps secrets like fracking chemicals for the good of the community.
Good comment, Rosslaw.
My neighborhood refused to sell our mineral rights and chose a safe environment instead. The decision works for us. No worries about gas in the water line, house blowing up, and any other side effects from fracking. People have to decide for themselves if they are willing to take the risk. Water company demands that the individuals buy their own insurance and do not cover damages. By the time people did that for their lots the money they pay for fracking isn't worth it. Large land owners have become millionaires but the average person has not. The world demands gas, this will continue. But not in my neighborhood.
Shale , sweet crude, natural gas, coal etc, etc is just a joke. Bad times are coming to your town soon. Most people just stick their heads in the sand and only look at the short term fix.
the best thing we can do is sit on the shale oil reserves and develop technology to reduce oil consumption by 90%. With modernized nuclear (which is safe) and renewables like wind, solar, and hydroelectric combined with natural gas. A 25,000 tax credit (lowering taxes for Americans) for plugin hybrids (or all electric) and investing in green would cost less then the cost of the Iraq war. 2 trillion dollars would purchase 80 million hybrid cars at 25k a piece. We need to nationalize energy and contract out production. This sounds expensive, but it would put 25k back in the pockets of Americans and reduce the amount of money families spend on transportation by 90%. People would have more money to invest and spend. Gas would drop back to a dollar a gallon. the oil producing nations (most of them are our enemies) would be weakened. It would eliminate 90% of the trade deficit. A stipulation that hybrid cars must be made in America to qualify for the credit would create millions of jobs. Real investments in green energy will create millions of jobs. Ans...we wont need to spend trillions of dollars and AMERICAN BLOOD fighting future wars to stabilize the middle east. One day cheap oil produced from wells will dry up....then we sell our shale oil.. for the cost of gold.
I agree 100% but it will never happen in our lifetime.
LENR is the future. Forget the Shale stuff.
Cold Fusion has been pretty thoroughly debunked.
Sad to say, but the public won't believe in LENR until they can buy a unit to heat and power their home at the local Ace Hardware. My thanks go out to the many scientists who persisted in pursuing Pons and Fleischmann's work in spite of the beating they took from their peers. Here is a link to a thoughtful article on the current state of LENR research for anyone willing to keep an open mind about the matter.
Is this a pro fracking article? Really? But then we all know CNN, like all mainstream media outlets are all bought and paid for by the elitists......Perhaps the author of this paid promotion should watch Gasland
Fareed: Your report was just a puff piece for the oil/gas industry. You should try living near these gas wells for a while to know about the contaminated air and water they produce and how they make the area unlivable. If this energy source is ever going to succeed, then the oil/gas companies must first cease their efforts to undermine existing environmental regulations. There must also be air and water safeguards in place before any drilling/fracking takes place. Sure, we need the energy resource but not at the cost of environmental degradation.
A glut of cheap shale gas or clean, drinkable water. Pick one!
There is little benefit to burning gas that comes from oil. Even if there was no other environmental impact gas cars are causing huge problems. To add to that now this fracking bit is poisoning water and causing huge amounts of methane to be released causing a huge increase in environmental damage. I hate what it is doing to us yet there is little we can do to stop them. And yes I drive many thousands of miles a year far more then most so I can't say I am doing much of anything good on my end. That being said I would buy a Volt if I could afford one.
At least you realize your behavior needs to be modified and that there are currently available solutions. Most people never get that far...
Why are we still burning fossil fuels or thinking that's a good idea to do more of it? There are better ways to produce energy, like geothermal plants that convert the heat of the core into electricity. This would be a non-polluting, renewable resource that will last for hundreds of years with little maintenance. Unfortunately the initial cost for the project would be substantial and might be best left up to the Government as the Hoover Damn was.
Great article! Technological progress ROCKS!
Plus the hundreds of thousands of jobs it creates! AWESOME!
what a maroon!
It is NOT progress, it is lies and propaganda, all in an effort to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, and to hell with the people it hurts. Wake up!
I say that anyone who opposes technological progress should have to live without the benefits of such progress. That would include all fuels, plastics, modern medicine, and so on.
What a total, completely unmitigated maroon!
What a total, completely unmitigated nitwit!
We've got a decade reprieve cheap electricity from natural gas, lets not waste it. Keep building solar while we still can.
The post peak oil supply slump is going to hit within the next few years.
More industry propaganda, period. Public water systems all over the country are facing take overs by private companies in preparation for the massive amounts of water that are needed for these wells to produce. Many parts of the U.S. are experiencing drought – so are we going to trade clean, clear potable water for gas and oil? It would be WONDERFUL if the B.S. in this article supporting the fossil fuel industry were true – but it's NOT – these corps don't care, aren't going to care, all they want is the profits... so they ruin your well water, what then? It's already happened and it's going to continue to happen... Wake up – EVERYONE and question EVERYTHING... and Fareed, I'm so very disappointed that you've been bought out .... there's a price to pay for dealing with the devil I"ve heard!
While there are costs to it, it would be idiotic not to take advantage of all this domestic energy lying beneath our soil.
Dear Mr. Zakaria,
If You would like to know exactly how and why you (and "they") are so very wrong, plese contact me. There is information about clean and future energ that most people will refuse to believe. It is all so basic, simple and logical. I will try to share it with the world in the near future. You can have it first if you would like. With great appreciation, admiration and respect for all that You do. Most Sincerely, natstr@ att.net
Yea, and I've invented a carburetor that gets 375 miles a gallon. Within a week gasoline will be overflowing from your tank.
Please contact me at...
We're entrenched in an irreconcilable fight between the right and left about how to provide for energy security in the U.S. Some of that is ideological, and more of it is an issue of which private interests are funding which party. The right will only accept a solution which allows us to open up our vast fossil fuel reserves. The left will only accept an answer which paves the way for green energy. Why not do both? Open up federal land for gas production (while meeting all of the appropriate ecological concerns) to 100% – give every lease the government can give...for 20-30 years. And earmark 100% of the money from those leases to fund green energy projects and research. It would give us energy security and still provide us with a real and tangible transition to green energy (something the current political and economic stalemate hasn't been able to touch in the past 30 years).
Gollygeewhilikers! ANOTHER game-changer. Please ban the use of this word.
Yes, the use of this word is both epic and extreme.
Natural gas is a wonderful fuel but it still a hydrocarbon. When burned it will produce carbon dioxide and unfortunately the biosphere can only handle so much carbon dioxide before really bad things happen. So while gas is better than oil as far as carbon dioxide production is concerned, the US should still push for wind and solar production of electricity. Electricity can be used to make hydrogen which is just as usable as natural gas. The energy demands of the US and the world require using all the ones available: natural gas, oil, coal, wind, solar and nuclear. But shifting from oil
and coal consumption will do the most for the US security. The simple truth is that US usage of oil requires vast imports of oil and export of money to many countries that hate the US. So the less oil that is used, the less money to fuel the terrorist of the world.
We are "burning" ourselves out of existence.
We need to heavily-tax all of these fossil-fuels and invest in improving all of the non-burning, renewal-energy sources.
Hey, wonderful!!!!! I've got another idea, lets abolish the EPA so we can frack unfettered. What could possibly go wrong?? Absolutely nothing, thats what!! These energy companies are brimming with integrity, there's no way they would do anything to contaminate water supplies..NEVER!! No sireee, these patriots value human life, and safety way over money. Frack away heroes!!
Yes, Obama now has a choice to save the US or destroy it. Unfortunately, his choice have been destruction. The poor and the middle class will suffer greatly if his energy policy continues. He could be responsible for more US deaths than Hitler was through WW II. Add the abortion killings in, and Obama will be the greatest threat to life on earth since the asteroid wiped out some dinosaurs. It is amazing what one corrupt, incompetent Chicago Democrat can do. Illinois usually likes to jail it top corrupt leaders but the news media rescued Obama before Fitzgerald could nail him.
If you are tired of it then help others and demand of your politicians that cheaper, cleaner, energy is developed and used. This whole thing is insane...when did we decide that we want to make our home land a moon scape. Canada is doing it in Alberta with the tar sands...do we want to do the same thing. And when did we decide that we don't care what we leave our children and grandchildren. They won't have good drinking water and the land and air will be polluted. We have become worse that any flesh eating bug. We are destroying the flesh of this earth.
Gee, for once Fareed says something that actually makes some sense.
This piece of "journalism" stinks from far away...it stinks like cash paid by the industry to CNN for some smart advertising...Problem is, most folks here got that right away, we're not that stupid. As for fracking, I would feed Mr. Zakharia water from the wells in Watford City, ND and then have him tell me what it tastes like...betch ya he won;t like it unless he's into spitting fire and natural gas...what a jokster
fracking is very destructive to fresh ground water and its negative impacts are hard to reverse when pockets of methane stream directly out of lawns and building foundations.clean water is a resourse that may become more valuable than energy in years to come.lets wise up and stop the dirty,shoddy, quick fixes.
I know a farmer in Ohio making $80k a month from mineral rights on his farm. He recieved a 5 year lease plus 18% of whats found. Not long ago made a hard living from farming.
The hold up is creating an infrastructure to support the operations. Many of these areas are serviced by 2 lane county roads. The numbers of vehicles to move the gas and oil alone becomes difficult to coordinate. Then you figure in seamless pipe, equipment, supplies, etc... Right now they're capping wells until support catches up.
We know who's got Zakira in their big pocket, Big Oil
I stopped reading after watching 20 seconds of the flaming water/sink picture. For all of you non-country folk... that is called drip gas, has been around for thousands of years and is the result of methane "naturally" leaking from the ground into shallow water supplies. I used to run engines on it [3 minutes tops before engine was ruined], clean paint brushes and rollers, etc. I'm pretty sure that there is not one case of the "flaming sink" syndrome associated with tracking. Nice try at lying to the masses. Go Vermont! Vermont is a non-player and it just goes to show what ignorant people will do! Geeeezzzz!
Look at that,n the next 20 years, much of this energy could come from stable, democratic countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Poland, France and Israel. Israel is democratic? Its an apartheid state, hear it from an arab christian who lives their
If you wish to learn about fracking without a political point of view, I encourage you to visit the web site of the U.S. energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov .
Like it or not, natural gas will be extracted and used. There's no way this source of energy will be left untapped, especially when there's a demand for it. As the author mentioned, it would better to find a way to do it as safety and cleanly as possible.
The benefits of a more peaceful and stable world more than offsets any environmental concerns. Add to it that NG provides the poor a cheap energy source, and the pros vastly outweigh the cons.
While natural gas has a lot of potential, fracking is way too dangerous and unknown to put too many eggs in that basket. Let me see if I have this right: Drillers inject unknown chemicals deep into the body of mother earth that seem to be causing ground water pollution and earthquakes, and won't even disclose what these chemicals are? If you want to mess with my groundwater, you had better tell me what you are putting in the ground. Natural gas can be a bridge technology towards a more sustainable future but we must have full disclosure. And who is responsible for the damage to aquifers and from earthquakes? I say solar panels, made in the USA, on every roof, even in Seattle. Realize that the Chinese are dumping under cost solar panels on the world market to steal the industry from everyone else, us included. I can live without oil (difficult, I agree) but I cannot live without clean water.
Fracking is more than 2 decades old Fareed. It was first successfully done back around 1947, It is hardly a new technique.
Why come up with toxic ways to hold onto a fossil fuel dependence. Rather than spending money developing the fracking process why not use it towards developing greener, sustainable energy. This is the sort of closed minded, money grubbing thinking that has put the entire world in the situation it is in. We must open our minds and evolve, accept that the way we are doing things is unsustainable (both environmentally and economically), and adjust our course now.
The fracking process has already been developed and is economically feasible. Natual gas is dirt cheap. It is already here in the US and will create good paying jobs in a variety of fields. It is not toxic or harmful when done properly.
Fracking isnt the problem, medschool, irresponsible companies are the problem. Unfortunately, companies are more concerned with making money than being environmentally conscious. We cannot expect anyone to police them.
Part of the problem is our dependence on fossil fuels and if we start talking about fracking and it supplying natural gas for 100 years that does not solve our issues. Let's burn 100 more years worth of natural gas and see how that affects our environment. The question isnt whether we can extract natural gas cheaply, but whether we should focus our efforts on changing how we generate our energy.
look up gasfrac, it doesn't use any water whatsoever
Pimp all you want Fareed but shale oil is no fix and risks uncontrollable downsides. With potable water as valuable as oil this trades the devil we do not know for the devil we do. Quite simply, your opinion here is dangerous for the planet and paints a future which can not and should not think of fracking as acceptable.Like coal last century shale oil is a filthy technology that merely throws 100 years of sustainability on the bonfire of our vanities. Just as with illegal drugs, America can not just huff and puff and expect our consumption to be sustainable. There is always a price to pay and fracking leaves our collective heads in some filthy collective sands.
This reads more like hype then any scientific analysis. The report is from people within the industry who will profit from this, and helps to steer other energy companies into potential safe business gains. Of course it is good it talks about increasing safety and environmental standards – it is a good way to avoid lawsuits and keep the money coming.
100 years is very shortsighted. This technology is destroying the environment – and the precious commodity of clean fresh water.Once we pollute our drinking water for a bit of dirty fuel, it just won't seem so important (except CEO's) and changing our lifestyles to use less energy might not seem like a bad thing. People who can profit are putting the issue of fuel above clean air and clean water and the environment as a whole. We can live without one but not the other.
Don't know who was supplying the idiotic voiceover for the "story" on flaming faucets, but clearly, the coal industry couldn't have bought and paid for a more enthusiastic spokesperson. This "report" is so rife with factual errors and bias that it could not stand the scrutiny of a high school yearbook editor.
alright gas for the next hundred... and then? lets just keep wasting time and effort into a fuels that finite. no need to worry about the future cause we will be dead, let our kids handle it
Great. Very cute but what ARE the things that can be done and how can we make China etc do them?
This is all wonderful, except that the current administration is allowing the Chinese to buy up our oil deposits.
A couple of quick points- as someone dealing with big oil on my property daily, they need to ensure zero contamination of groundwater and if they cant fracking should not be permitted in the area. 2. Since when did the United States import natural gas from iran? Between Canada and Mexico the US has had ample gas supplied for decades now.3. For all you environmentalists out there answer this- how much more water is required over the lifetime of a oil well to transform the oil into gasoline versus the one time water usage for a frack job on a gas well? sometimes the well intentioned seem to miss the big picture- and unless you sell that suv in the driveway dont tell me oil, gas, or any other hydrocarbon base fuel should be banned.Most americans are still far more dependant on fossil fuels than they realise
Fracking places polluted water deep into the ground water where it can and does contaminate the ground water, as a EPA report confirmed on Dec 11th, 2011. Most environmentalists agree that we are to dependent on oil and gas, which is why there is an outcry against these measures that pollute the environment on extraction and then a second time on usage. Most are not saying we can change overnight, but that we need to start implementing change on a scale that will make a difference.
Cannot find the report you speak of but fracking does not harm or contaminate the water table. The fracking occurs too far below the water table.
The water contamination that I have researched occured from improper wastewater disposal or faulty pipelines. Most reports of methane in well water have been attributed to natural biogenic methane production in the shallow water tables used for wells. If you are in a shale field you have a higher chance of naturally having methane in your well water.
agreed , won't be much help if we have lots of gas and NO water!!!
Actually the time to account for the 40% break is less than 4 years, so the total payback time without any incentives is less than 11 years in my case.
The simple fact is that at current prices it is highly profitable to turn Natural Gas into Gasoline. Profitable enough that companies like Shell are considering building the facilities to do so.
While not a green technology, it IS cleaner than oil. It also is a domestic product using the exact same infrastructure we already have. Even better in my opinion, you get to drive your car without sending money to people who hate Americans.
Why don't we ask General Electric to release their US Patents on zero-point energy extraction? An over unity device that emits ZERO emissions into the Earth.
Don't be fooled for one second. CNN panders to big oil just like politicians. They need more money to make up for their terrible ratings. We have had so many people on this Earth make other fuel systems i.e. Nikola Tesla and Stan Meyer, only to have it shelved by companies like BP and Exxon.
Please, America. We don't need gas in any way, shape, or form any more. We don't even need solar or wind power. It's obsolete. The only reason we aren't using anti-gravitic systems is because the big oil companies can't put a meter on it.
Zero point energy generators aren't possible under the laws of physics. They are a conspiracy theorist fairy tale.
"General Motors is planning to produce cars that can take natural gas or oil in their fuel tanks."
I surely hope the author(s) of this article meant to write about fueling a car with "oil", but at least they got close to the real name-it's called "gasoline", a derivative of "oil".
I have become less and less impressed with whatever passes for proofreading at CNN.COM. The problem has become endemic to the entire site.
Anyone at CNN ever read these posts?
Ops-glad I'm not an English prof.
Replace "meant to write" with "did not mean to write".
How embarrassing.
I think they call this type of occurrence "serendipity".
Good, keep all the oil money here, soon, we will pay off our debts.
Today Mr. Zakaria is a non-renewable energy source expert. Tomorrow he will be a visting yo-yo scholar at a theater near you
Just so everyone knows natural gas is not "turned into" gasoline or diesel. Most gasoline engines run easily and efficently on compressed natural gas (CNG) with only a few modifications. Most diesel engines and fleet vehicles run well on liquified natural gas (LNG). All it takes is some minor modifications to fuel lines, etc. and installing a pressurized tank. Not sure if that easily translates to aviation or not. Natural gas would be a great "transition fuel" that is much cleaner burning but cheap and available in the US. FYI there is a CNG pump at a station near my home and it runs about $1.50 for a gallon of gasoline energy equivalent (which is the unit it is sold in).
What America needs is the 555 plan. Legislate or agree by referendum, that the 5 major oil companies and 5 major auto makers must install CNG in 5% of their retail locations and build 5% of their vehicle fleet as dedicated CNG fueled in the first year. Then increase that another 5% every year for 5 years. After 5 years our oil imports will be substantially reduced and the price of oil will fall due to reduced demand in the USA.
I don't understand why all major cities aren't utilizing LNG for their buses and other fleet vehicles. They don't even need high capacity pipelines. The vehicles park at the end of the day and can be refueled all night. It would be cheaper and way cleaner than diesel.
Nothing but hinduism, wishful thinking, tired of listening to hinduism, hog wash of hindu's, lairs since 1972.
Big Oil and the Republicans will never allow this to happen or be successful in lowering the cost of gas in the US.
Using more domestic natural gas is actually part of the current republican platform.
Wow..does this guy not have a clue. Canada currently supplies the US with 80% of your natural gas. In fact more than half of your energy needs are supplied by your neighbours to the North.
This article is industry hype. Sure LNG is a great resource for energy. It burns cleaner, is abundant in the US and is "cheaper" to produce. The quotes are Mr. Zakaria's because for the producer it is MARGINALLY cheaper at this point in time. For our nation as a whole (economically) its about a break even. All the economic geniuses on here buffing their chops should remember that all the economic truisms their quoting are only true in an "economic vacuum" which NEVER exists. The basic economic rule breaker here is the distance value of a commodity (especially a not easily storable one like LNG). Hence gas is cheap and good in the midwest (close to resources) but Florida not so much. Of course the company mining or shipping the commodity just passes those "tertiary" costs on the the consumer. An example is like we in the NW are seeing now with gasoline dropping $50 a barrel in the last six weeks but our pump prices went up 40 cents because we are not close to the source and only have one or two major refiners in the area. LNG (which is plentiful here) would be a decent replacement but the economy is deeply rooted in oil so there's a large capital cost involved in upgrading and most of the players here are looking to export and sell it. Also for our nation as a whole regulation of "fraking" is not up to speed yet so the environmental and quality of living risks are large, The math looks promising but the science isn't quite there yet.
I'm not an energy economics expert but I would think the cost of building high volume pipelines would actually be cheaper in the long run than shipping by truck.
We already have the gas pipelines in place, but for it to be used as vehicle fuel, you need high pressure connections. (If it's not at high pressure, you can't get enough into the tank to provide useful range). Still, not a difficult or expensive problem when compared to trying to turn natural gas into a liquid fuel.
This isn't correct at all. I worked in the oil field and we were fracking wells in the late 50's in the Rangely, Colorado oil field. I know, because I was working on a well servicing rig at the time and we helped to hook up the pump trucks. No, this isn't new technology at all. Maybe some of the chemicals, but sand was used then as a propping agent like today.
Boy liberals hate it when we produce our own gas, they would rather kiss Islamo-butts
We hate it more when people generalize. I'm not opposed to extracting natural gas at all, even if my social politics are liberal.
A few inaccuracies: Fracking was first done in the 1860's with hydraulic fracking taking place initially in the 1940's.
While the process uses water, it does not CONSUME water as water is used to create fluid and it is the sand that remains in place to keep the fractures open allowing for the oil or gas to escape from the host rock.
All the concerns about the environmental effect are rally a lot to do about very little. Society as a whole can benefit more from allowing this type of production than not allowing it to occur because of some minor issues which for the most part are not related to the process itself but rather to the subsequent production process which can be fixed.
Fracking has been occurring here in Colorado for several years. The problem is that the frackers have to find a way to make it a cleaner process and not polute ground water. I think thats doable. The bigger problem is the imminent domain issues that have been popping up here that have forced families to accept drilling on their property. That.....appears to be the larger problem.
BTW, I thought it would be a cold day in h e l l when I agreed with anything Fareed says. Im amazed to admit that I agree with him on this one. My world is upside down. I doubt it will happen again.
most of the psots are concerned about the fuel itself-who cares how cheap it is if it destroys underground water and substrate, produces poisonous gases and destabilises the rock base. Because it is fuel, the govs all over the world have ignored the issues and hope this will save their rrses. I fear that the long term effects of this will impact the next generations , so as usual the world will ignore it until its too late–BTW, it may be the lesser of the evil if the yanks are trying to destroy the artic circle for oil.
in a hundred years if we're still burning fossil fuels we fail.
Many scientist are concerned with the environmental dangers of fracking. There is the danger of contaminating the ground water.
The oil industry has a history of factoring in the costs of paying potential legal claims instead of creating safer equipment. If they were held to the same standards as the airline industry we wouldn't have so many oil related disasters. Instead the oil industry invests in lawyers and the political elections of judges that support their causes.
It's much cheaper and increases their profit margins.
Many people believe that water will be the next scarce natural resource. Once a water table is contaminated by fracking the entire area will be uninhabitable.
The oil industry is spending a lot of money convincing the public that this is green energy. It is far from it.
Fracking A! More Gas!
Fareed's opinion on natural gas betrays a weakness common among all who do not live right next to the drill rigs and the production pads. The process is hugely damaging to everything the industry comes into contact with...air, water, dirt, flora, and fauna. The gas ads on TV are frustratingly dishonest by omission. He is correct that the problems can be corrected BUT the single biggest hurdle is the companies themselves. They will NOT do so in a serious way until forced. But they are crafty. They gain the support and then control over all level of politicians, pour large sums into TV ads proclaiming "responsibility" in their operations which con the public, and stonewall credible science with "Bush Science" to blunt any threat to their doing business as usual. I know because I have just wrapped up 10 years of field science and challenge to the industry over their pollution of the air in my county in Wyoming but have been successfully marginalized by local, state, and federal land and environment managers who have no intention of complying with the purpose of NEPA.
I do agree that the companies will have to work a little harder to clean up certain aspects of the process. But I don't think it is nearly as damaging to the environment as you think it is. I too have been around wells and drilling operations in my area. Growing up I hunted deer near well sites and after they are done drilling the wildlife quickly returns. The gas companies have to maintain the well pads so that the natural flora doesn't overtake it. What kind of air pollution did you encounter? Yes there may be some air pollution during the drilling process but once the well is producing I can't imagine it being that polluting.
Who is this Zakaria the Seer of the Universe? Come on he has answer for everything happening in the world.
Zakaria is a sort of medical symptom. Currently it cannot be treated by medication yet.
Sure he can answer it....they are trying to create world government
Someone's article conveniently forgot to mention that it contaminates ground water on a large scale.
What's really most important?
Clean, safe water?
or cheap natural gas?
I constantly read that we don't have the infrastructure to support natural gas refueling for automobiles. That is not true. The natural gas infrastructure in the U.S. is huge! I have a natural gas pipeline to my house, as many Americans do. It's not the right pressure, but it's there. There is no natiowide pipeline for gasoline. The EXISTING natural gas infrastructure can be used to PIPE natural gas to filling stations all over the country for negligible cost. The only cost would be to set up pressure tanks and pumps at filling stations. Come on people. Stop making excuses for not using natural gas as an automotive fuel. It is MUCH cleaner and cheaper. There's a nationwide infrastructure to support it without trucking it around. To me, this is a no brainer.
A couple more points.
1) Energy is the ultimate commodity. There will always be INSATIABLE demand for it. It is better than gold. Energy wins wars, drives economies, makes millions of people rich. It is the ultimate source of power.
2) Every week I contribute $100 to the gasoline empire. That's $5200 per year, just from me. I am enriching the lives Arabs and other foriegners that don't deserve my hard earned money. They are enjoying their gold-plated toilets in Dubai, while I am borrowing money to stop my roof from leaking. I'm tired of it.
>> stable, democratic countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Poland, France and Israel.
That statement really makes me laugh...
Its destroyng the water table
I would love to see the transportation, service industry, and municipal transportation (police, fire, govt vehicles) all adopt natural gas. You can add that infrastructure in the form of tanks, at existing filling stations and truck stops fairly easily. It certainly wouldn't be the overly ambitious and expensive project to do it with the entire civilian market and privately owned gas stations.
With 100 years of natural gas and more being found all the time, and with the new cancer study and diesel fumes – this would be a phenomenal way to get a lot more out of our oil reserves and lower prices for a trucking industry that is having a hard time. As well as a likely drop in prices to anything they haul. We all know how prices jump when gas jumps.
Fareed, what are these "rules?"
"Let's figure out how to make fracking cleaner and safer. We can regulate the process with good, simple rules."
Is 100 years of natural gas worth ruining entire aquifers? Do we have a technology that magically manufactures clean water saftely and inexpensively, or are all the reports from the DoD about clean water being one of the galvanizing national security issues for the next 25 years just something that is ignored? If clean water could just magically appear, no one would need billions in US dollars to de-salinate sea water. Just sayin'. Natural gas, or potable water? Hmmm. Mr. Zakaria, have you talked to any hydrologists lately?
Fareed = Communist
I live in Colorado where fracking is literally going on in people's backyards(Check out Greeley's skyline) and the chemicals they use with the water they will not disclose. They will not discuss nor do they want to talk at all about ground table and well water contamination from escaped methane and whatever chemicals are used in the water. I got neighbors who can light the well water coming out of their tap with a bic lighter. I live in a County that is completely monopolized and run politically by Republican/GOP Commissioners. The county Weld County, has the poorest income per-capita and the highest amount of children living below the poverty level than any other County in Colorado. The school systems in Weld County are rated the worst in Colorado and have the lowest CSAP scores in all of Colorado. The highest unemployment rate in all of Colorado is in Weld County. The highest foreclosure rate in all of Colorado was Weld County for about the last 7 years in a row. Now you would think with the oil and gas production boom and the fact over 1200 fracking sites have been erected in the last three years that all of the above should be just the opposite if Republicans, the GOP establishment, and oil and gas corporations were telling the truth about the jobs and wealth they create in the communities they operate. So if you want your own community or County to have the same enviroment.in low wage job prospects with no health care benefits, and want your children's education and IQ to only equal that of rural peasants in Quatemala, if you thrive on low wages, poverty, and contaminated ground water like in Weld County Colorado. If you want to prove you are a true GOP patriot, then please invite oil and gas companies/corporations to set up 300 to 500 foot foot drilling operations towers in your back yard so you can use your tap water to barbecue ribs or even create a flame thrower from the water from your garden hose and let the kids play with it, then please, please, by all means vote and keep voting for Republicans. All the above realities of total Republican political tenure will soon be yours to have in your own your own community. By the way, some of these towns like Greeley have "Man Camps" on their outskirts and the most insidious spikes in crime of all kinds just skyrocke in every place this industry sets up. Just go read the Greeley Colorado Tribune daily headlines for a month if you be a "Doubting Thomas" about the facts I am giving you.
This entire article is a corporate wet-dream. Thank you Fareed for selling out, I'll know better next time than to read your garbage.
And if the desperate people of America are poised to poison their drinking water for some cheep energy, do it the F#$K away from Washington State, where I live.
The Germans are massing solar energy projects, and investing in real futuristic endeavors; while we decimate our environment so that some Industrialists can pocket the big-bucks and retire off shore.
Dear Earthians:Any discussion of this planet's gas deposits would be incomplete without mention of methane hydrates which occur abundantly in the world's oceans, tundras and swamps .How about monetizing THAT before global warming results in it's catastrophic release into an oxygen rich atmosphere?
Kind of a low-depth article – sure, there's some potential in Natural Gas, and ANGA is managing a terrific PR campaign disguised as feel-good commercials, but a couple of other questions come to mind, like why just say that methane is a 'greenhouse gas', without explaining its radiative forcing (very basically, the ability to trap heat within the atmosphere, which can lead to global warming) capacity versus alternatives? Most studies show methane's capacity to be up to 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. And in terms of safety, can someone from San Bruno weigh in? Oh...right. Not to mention does anyone really want the potential hydrogen bomb that is an LNG tanker in the waterways around NYC or Boston? Plus, and this goes under examined, there is, I think an implicit idea that if we (the US) produces all of the Natural Gas that prices will somehow plummet for the average consumer. The reality, I think, is that once the infrastructure is in place (often supplemented by taxpayer dollars) then the laws of supply and demand will fall into place, prices will rise to oil-type levels, large energy companies will continue to get richer on our dime, and if overseas demand is right, we're basically going to be destroying our country in order to export 'new friends'. Quite frankly, both natural gas and oil are dredged from the same dinosaur muck, and none of it's renewable. Biofuels (not corn-based: think algae or even switchgrass), are renewable and effective and could be a true fix, as could solar in a few years. Unfortunately, no one in the corporate-indutrial complex that seems to guide policy in this country is positioned to make money (or get PAC donations), from this route, so once again we move toward what looks, increasingly, like the dark dystopian future envisioned by writers like Orwell and Huxley.
This article is full of generalizations and inaccuracies–not what I'd expect from Mr. Zakaria. First of all, LNG must be stored under high pressure, so there is no way to have both in your gas tank as he states–a duel-fuel vehicle of this kind would imply two fuel systems.
I'd also like to see some kind of backup for the claim of the "hundreds of thousands of jobs" that have been created from fracking. I doubt that many are directly attributable to the industry, and many of those are only around during the construction phase.
Finally, it is highly forgiving to say that fracking "consumes a lot of water." A more precise word would be "destroys" since there is no remediation process today that can make water used in fracking suitable for human (or other) use. It is permanent contamination, plain and simple.
I'm not categorically against fracking for the very reasons Mr. Zakaria cites in his piece. I just think we need to be honest about the risks, which are significant particularly with regard to water.
RE: Gasoline to propane conversion.
"...involves adding a second gas venturi between the original gasoline carburetor and the air filter...attached with a hose to a propane regulator. A large needle valve is added to the regulator outlet. Finally a gasoline cutoff valve must be added as close to the carburetor as possible."
Chastain;" Generators and Inverters", page 100, ISBN #978-0-9702203-5-6
You're Welcome!!
Another great article and good point, Fareed. But even when fracking is used, it is still just a band-aid over the real problem, isn't it? Until we teach children that pro-active solutions are the most effective and efficient, when they grow-up to become adults they will still put off making hard but important changes until they are absolutely forced to.
Fracking? Stupid, polluting, costs more energy than it produces. Another non-solution for profiteers. Solutions are diverse, and are not going to be easily or permanently run from the top down. Solutions include, and all are less costly in distributed costs, and in social and environmental justice costs (the most important part of any "ledger"): CYLINDRICAL wind power (can be scaled to ANY population, down to a single dwelling with spare parts), wave, solar, tidal, geothermal, ion exchange, heat-pump (works both in city and rural environments), ocean thermal, ocean wave bobbing, and hundreds upon hundreds of others with minimal to negligable costs before, up-front, or in long-term, and absolutely statistically low-cost compared to ANY fossil fuel pursuit, which only continue to be pursued because of the unquenchable greed of the billionaire class and other psychopaths.
Well, kids, we've run out of firewood so we're going to start burning the house. Billy, it's your room first, so bring your Transformers to the basement.
warsztat samochodowy praga
groźnych gwoli media. Uniwersalnie jak nie ulega kwestii, e lakiernie promieniująwyjątkowo notorycznie próbują się niedaleko w największym stopniu przykładnychdokonany w oparciu o instrukcję uwzględniającą publicznieprokreacji. Na nieszczęście automaty remontowe z rzadka dorównują solidnościąincydentalnego spośród takiego sortu. Strategia w miary kompletnej gospodarki owo funkcja
Thank you for every other great post. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such an ideal approach of writing? I've a presentation subsequent week, and I'm at the search for such info.
A shame to see tonights episode of GPS. Zakaria appears to completely dismiss the risk of global warming by bringing in solely commentators who recommend shale gas. Why not give the other side of the story as well? For instance the one that is backed by scientists.
Thank you for another great article. Where else may anyone get that type of information in such an ideal manner of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I'm at the search for such info.
gzxayjs [url=http://www.chloesutoa.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] ickoybs xxokoqg [url=http://www.chloesutoa.com/]クロエ バッグ[/url] qnmnqmg sxqntsx [url=http://www.chloesutoa.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] dhbmfhw aoaylqj http://www.chloesutoa.com/ detlfdk pbfvuwo [url=http://www.chloesearch.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] weasihg ewsqkxx [url=http://www.chloesearch.com/]Chloe アウトレット[/url] ojpzonn nynaxwp [url=http://www.chloesearch.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] odulntd yxeqoyw http://www.chloesearch.com/ tkihgfi ceomnxm [url=http://www.chloeonly.com/]クロエ 長財布[/url] udslodu demabmx [url=http://www.chloeonly.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] wvnqtyh kgwaqwu [url=http://www.chloeonly.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] kauzcwm dojqfkh http://www.chloeonly.com/ uwdbfxe vlcxddv [url=http://www.paulsmithyasuyi.com/]ポールスミス バッグ[/url] pybnlcj wyblhyk [url=http://www.paulsmithyasuyi.com/]ポールスミス 財布[/url] bleuudc ffgsvqq [url=http://www.paulsmithyasuyi.com/]ポールスミス 財布[/url] nnsltgk dhekkev http://www.paulsmithyasuyi.com/ aiobgbt fktolgk [url=http://www.pradatome.com/]プラダ アウトレット[/url] vuwivif rwynjro [url=http://www.pradatome.com/]プラダ 財布[/url] uizybiq iwgcnqb [url=http://www.pradatome.com/]プラダ バッグ[/url] etzxypc qneizwa http://www.pradatome.com/ piwjdql qxoefpg [url=http://www.chloeye.com/]クロエ バッグ[/url] zubnlws pwowcnk [url=http://www.chloeye.com/]クロエ アウトレット[/url] cgrdniw apgwcfu [url=http://www.chloeye.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] sstuhyb mfeanky http://www.chloeye.com/ yrzcxcc
Hola! I've been reading your website for a long time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Porter Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good job!Roofing Repair of Irving, 1117 Brandon Ct., Irving, TX 75060-4948 – (972) 200-4770
Great web site. A lot of useful information here. I'm sending it to a few pals ans also sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you to your effort!
Natural gas can be converted to diesel. It's an expensive process, but with natural gas both abundant and cheap, it does make sense. So yes, helicopters and just about anything else could be run on natural gas in one form or another.
Interesting question. It is my understanding that the oil market has unique economics. The 3 ~ 10 % of buyers that are willing to pay the highest prices set the price for the rest of us. As such if gas can reduce global consumption of oil by 3 ~ 10 % there could be a precipitous drop in oil, and therefore jet fuel prices thereby solving the jet fuel and diesel problem. I am not sure if you were asking a technical or an economic question but that is my economic view.
It should be very easy and cheap to install the necessary infrastructure in any city where most homes are heated by natural gas such as St. Louis. What could be better than to fill your car with natural gas from the gas outlet that heats your home and only use liquid fuel as a backup.
Natural gas is currently used to power gas turbines, i.e., jet engines, used to produce electricity in what are called "peaker units" that add power to the grid during times of peak demand. So the short answer is yes.
There have also been experimental methane powered jet engines of various configurations, with the proposed application being hypersonic aircraft and missiles where the cold liquid methane would be used to cool the airframe before being burned as fuel.
Natural Gas may create jobs but from a price point its about the same as oil so who cares? American drills it from America, American pipes or trucks it to the Gulf, American loads it onto to Natural gas Tanker, European consumes it, large multinational corporation takes care of their shareholders. Or 100 year supply of gas for Americans only at what equates on gasoline prices to $4.50/gallon. Maybe they'll discover the sun soon and invest in solar; ah but you can't sell the sun.
Airplanes are a complete failure of technology- they are a complete waste of natural resources and will go extinct just like the NASA program.
TO ALL: Your arguments are all lucid and compelling (well, almost all). I actually enjoy reading most of your positions. I would offer this opinion for your consideration...in the end, it all boils down to one thing: whoever has the most money and is willing to spend it on Capitol Hill, that is who determines what we will put in our cars, airplanes, etc... I have been around a long time. I have watched this carefully. In the end, regardless of the technology, regardless of manufacturing and labor cost, regardless of the savings, regardless of the benefit to mankind...the one factor that ultimately determines what consumers have and use is the amount of money "spent" in Washington DC. Whoever is willing to spend the most there, that is who gets their way. Period. The people don't determine what happens, the politicians don't determine what happens...it is the lobbyists and special interest groups that control everything. Why? They have the money...lots of it. Remember the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. Think about it.
Now its called fracking. Look go back where you came from if their is anything left of the place your lucky. I don't really care I love hearing Mrs Yamamoto's teeth rattle in the middle of the night. Is fracking drilling 30 miles through the rock shelves of the earth to get oil?
you don't bother to power planes and boats with natural gas. you power the 30million cars that dwarf those when taken as a sum. general public always jumps to the small details and them makes major assumptions about them. you power 30million cars first, by far the major consumer. then you power bigger things if it makes sense.
So, lets spend $5 to make $1 ... hmm... that makes a lot of sense
@ Vlad – converting fuels might make sense if it avoids higher capital costs associated with replacing the equipment that would operate on the consumption of the fuel type. WIthout numbers to look at it, it's impossible to say that it wouldn't be more cost effective to convert NG into a fuel type that would burn in existing engines rather than dispense with existing engines and roll out fleets of new cars that only run on NG. Also, the refueling infrastructure is already in place – storing NG separately from the existing diesel fuels would have a cost associated with it and would require upgrading the vast majority of gas stations etc.
Converting natural gas to liquid fuels has been a holy grail for oil companies for many years. There is a huge amount of gas stuck on the North slope in Alaska because the is no good way to liquefy it and send it down the pipeline. The kinetics and the energy balance is very much against this. Gas is very very stable (until you burn it) There is still no good way.. Many have tried and many have failed.
Comments about gas to liquids technology (GTL) were made that it is very expensive and "a holy grail" (meaning it does not exist. First GTL technology is very old. The Germans were using it in WWII to convert coal to oil. The same is true of South Africa (Sasol) in the 70's because they were under an economic embargo. In both cases, the coal was heated to produce a "syngas", which was pumped over a catalyst to create a liquid product that can be tuned to a naptha or diesel grade product. This technology was being developed again in the 70's. Gulf Oil and Badger Engineering patented a process to convert natural gas to liquids, as did Shell Oil. The goal was to bring "stranded gas" to market.
The barrier to entry into this market is not the technology but the high capital cost. Building a liquification plant to convert stranded gas to LNG is cheaper than a GTL plant of similar capacity.
That said, there has never been as high a disparity between natural gas prices and crude oil prices. Oil is about $100/bbl and gas is about $2.25/MMBtu's. Last time I can remember gas being that cheap was 1975.
I personally believe that a GTL plant is economic right now in the United States. It could be built near a pipeline connection so that it would not be dependent on any single source. But there is no assurance that gas prices will stay this low, so probably no one will take the risk.
If the natural gas is produced in the US, then we do not have to purchase oil from the arabs of the world that would love to see all americans dead. I for one, would quit buying oil from the arabs in a New York minute if it were possible.
The gas doesn't really need to be converted. It can be compressed into a storage tank and directly combusted. Fuel does not have to be a liquid.
12,500/1,200 = 10.12 Years simple payback As most units actually have a 10% drop in production over the first ten years then the payback would be slightly longer. Of course with the subsidies (or redistribution of wealth or stealing) the payback is less.
@Ray Your understanding of economics is wrong, but your conclusion is correct. Crude oil is a pure commodity, and the price of crude is the point where supply equals demand, not a penny higher or lower. If we could use natural gas to offset 10% of our crude consumption, it would cause a significant drop in the price of crude because demand for crude would have dropped by 10%. Just remember that you have to offset what we do here in the US against what happens in China, India, etc. - so a 10% drop in the US could turn into a net increase when you account for other countries in terms of aggregate global demand. Plus OPEC is continually trying to raise prices by lowering supply.
you're insulting his grasp of economics? oil prices are not perfectly set by supply and demand- it is the most artificially priced commodity in the world
@John As Yeahbuddy pointed out, the crude oil market is anything but a pure supply and demand market. Speculation is a significant factor in the price of oil. Also OPEC is not always trying to raise prices and or lower production. Their stated target price was 75/barrel, a price we haven't seen in some time but not because of OPEC.
@John-What is a perfect market? A perfect market means NO government interventions and EVERYONE is free to buy or sell. Last I looked, there was am embargo on Iran? Does this support your free market thinking? Remember, a free market says let the market decide(buyers and sellers), not governments.
What the frak is this ???
The big question to be answered is "can natural gas provide the energy density necessary to safely power a car, truck, train or airplane?" If it were as cheap and easy as you seem to believe, then we would have done it already, silly conspiracy theories aside.
There is a large Department of Energy project attempting to build cheap, safe compressors for homes to do exactly this.
You are correct that you can't get the same density out of gas or liquefied gas, but same as with electric cars, people simply don't need this high density. Natural gas fleet vehicles have been around for a while and the public has been able to buy natural gas civics and domestic trucks for quite some time...
Its used at more than just peaking units. Many combined cycle units produce electricity cheaper than the big coal units. So these units are now base load units. Many coal plants sit idle, while the combined cycle natural gas units run 24/7, and on top of that, with the cost of natural gas dropping, rate payers electric bills are falling too.
Check again it is far less than oil.
Its a lot cheaper than gasoline though. Plus, it burns between 25 and 35% cleaner. The U.S. has seen a substantial drop in carbon emissions over the past few years simply because of switching power plants to natural gas. Now, over decades, the reduction to emissions will decrease, but its drilled in America, meaning the money from buying it stays here and can fund research into even cleaner fuels. (For the record, we spend about $400 billion dollars on foreign oil, which makes up like 15% of our trade deficit)
This is about the stupidest post I've ever seen.
Air planes a complete failure? What are you smoking?
Yeh and don't forget about phones... What a dumb invention! That will fade too right John?
John is right. The automobile is also a fad. It will never replace the horse