Thanks very much to John Leggate, General Partner at VantagePoint Venture Partners and former CIO of BP, for writing in on the subject of Natural Gas. I agree that it’s too simple to label anyone as “good guy” or “bad guy” – but in the interest of simplifying the debate for those who follow at a distance (like most citizens), I want to draw with a broad brush, so to speak. We can fill in details later.
So let me come clean: Natural Gas, despite its warts and they are many, is a good guy.
Natural Gas (NG) is cleaner than coal, safer than nuclear, domestic, and a mature technology that’s available today. For those of us in the renewable energy business, it is also a good complement to variable power sources like wind and solar: gas turbines can ramp up and down relatively easily when a cloud comes overhead or a storm front moves through more quickly than anticipated.
Last week’s blog raised two new concerns: First, the emissions of “rogue methane” from hydro-fracking of shale gas as reported in the Cornell Study. Second, other negative effects of fracking, such as mini-earthquakes in Arkansas and groundwater contamination, as exposed by the Academy-Award nominated film Gasland.
It is clear that there are problems with fracking and the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators should be vigilant in their regulation of these extraction processes, wastewater-disposal processes, and so on.
For example, groundwater contamination seems to be real enough – but it is not likely to be a product of the hydrofracking that is taking place at very deep levels. More likely, some irresponsible drillers are simply dumping used hydrofracking fluids in local watersheds. This is unconscionable and should be pursued vigorously.
I take all these concerns seriously. But all of them apply solely to the fracking process, which is new. Only about one-quarter of our NG comes from shale gas to begin with. So while I’m sure many of us would support staffing up the EPA and other regulatory bodies to make sure that we don’t poison our wells, this does not mean we have to stop drilling or stop relying on Natural Gas as a mainstay of our energy landscape.
As John says, NG is the “least bad” of our fossil fuel options.
So what should utilities do? Pretty much what most of them ARE doing: build out primarily Wind Energy and Natural Gas for the bulk-power needs of America. Wind energy has accounted for about 35% of the new build in the past three years; NG has accounted for about 45%. The other 20% should be allotted to everything else – of which solar, hydro and other renewables comprise a major part.
Coal and nuclear, the baseload generators of yesteryear, have not been built in large amounts in recent decades, and their future seems to be very limited in their current form. No one wants to site, permit, insure, or finance these behemoths; no one wants to live near them. If nuclear can solve the many problems it faces (high cost, waste disposal, proliferation, safety) and if coal could reinvent itself as “coal with carbon-capture,” then perhaps there is a role for these old guys.
But I’m not holding my breath.
Copyright © 2011 Riverview Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved
[...] I have made clear in previous posts (i.e. Is Natural Gas a Good Guy?), I am in favor of natural gas (NG) electricity generation, and consider it both likely and [...]
[...] I have made clear in previous posts (i.e. Is Natural Gas a Good Guy?), I am in favor of natural gas (NG) electricity generation, and consider it both likely and [...]
[...] I have made clear in previous posts (i.e. Is Natural Gas a Good Guy?), I am in favor of natural gas (NG) electricity generation, and consider it both likely and [...]