Energy Agency's 'Golden Age' for Gas

How gold would natural gas's golden age be? It may depend on the eye of the beholder.

A special report (see fact sheet [pdf]) from the International Energy Agency released in advance of the World Energy Outlook 2011, due out November 9th, examines how ramping up natural gas would impact energy and climate up to 2035.

The Top Line - The Reason to Be Bullish on Natural Gas: Quantity

There's a lot of the stuff out there -- vast supplies of natural gas are widely distributed across the globe. IEA estimates every region of the globe has at least a 75-year supply at current consumption rates.

Going for the Gold: What Boosting Natural Gas Production Would Bring

In the report, IEA modeled how an increased emphasis on natural gas extraction from conventional and unconventional (read shale gas) sources would affect all things energy- and climate-related. The group's most bullish projection for natural gas is its "golden age of gas" scenario in which an additional 600 billion cubic meters of the gas would be produced by 2035. Here are some of IEA's key findings for this scenario:

• Natural gas consumption will increase by more than 50 percent from today's levels by 2035, and will overtake coal consumption by 2030.
• Conventional sources will dominate, but unconventional sources (like shale gas) will contribute more than 40 percent of the increase in supply.
• Eighty percent of the increase in consumption will occur in developing countries, which would also account for more than 85 percent of the increase in production over this period. China would become a top producer.

Natural Gas and Climate

As for climate? Conventional wisdom has it that natural gas is the most climate-friendly, low-carbon fossil fuel out there. (But not everyone agrees, and there's a pretty healthy debate -- see here [pdf], here, and here -- about the size and role of so-called fugitive emissions, which if large enough could conceivably make natural gas not much better or even worse than coal.)

The IEA places natural gas and shale gas in particular in the low-carbon/carbon-friendlier category, arguing that, with the "best practice in production, effectively monitored and regulated," the carbon footprint of shale gas, based on "available data," is only "slightly higher" than that of conventional gas (and far less than that for oil or coal).

But even with an approach that treats natural gas as being relatively climate-friendly, and assumes the "golden age" scenario, IEA still projects that we will be unable to stop temps from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Upping our use of natural gas would come primarily at the expense of coal but would also displace oil and nuclear. The net effect [pdf] is that our energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would decrease only "slightly" in 2035 (compared to the central scenario developed in last year's World Energy Outlook [pdf]), putting emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at around 650 parts per million, and suggesting a long-term temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius. (More here [pdf])

In 2010 IEA predicted that CO2 emissions would have to peak at 32 billion metric tons before 2020 and decrease to 22 billion metric tons in 2035 to stay below 2 degrees Celsius. In contrast, IEA's new "golden age" scenario puts emissions at 35 billion metric tons in 2035.

Natural Gas and Environmental Impacts

And what about the environmental impacts of shale gas extraction?

The IEA tends to be optimistic. It acknowledges there are serious environmental pitfalls, but opines that with "proper standards of environmental responsibility" these pitfall can be largely mitigated.

Golden Age Not All That Golden

One of the striking aspects of IEA's go-for-broke-with-natural-gas world is that it does not make that much of a difference and certainly does not place natural gas at the top of the heap when it comes to energy production (oil with 27 percent of primary energy demand retains that position).

• The "golden age" scenario only produces 12 percent more energy from natural gas than the central scenario.
• Even with its total production increased by 50 percent by 2035, natural gas would only account for about 25 percent of total energy production. Not that much more than the 21 percent natural gas provides today. In other words, going all out on natural gas production would allow the fuel to keep pace with, but not gain much ground on, rising demand.

One Bottom Line: No Silver Bullet Here

Shale gas is not going to be the panacea that gets us out of our climate and energy binds. Whatever happens with natural gas and the exploitation of unconventional sources like shale gas, we're simply going to have to work harder on efficiency and the demand side.

And while we're at it, let's recognize that because of a lack of data, fugitive emissions of natural gas remain a wildcard in all this and will remain so until we get adequate data. And I'm not the only one to say so. In its 90-day final report released last August, the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board specifically pointed out the need for comprehensive information on fugitive emissions. If shale gas is to play such a large role in our energy future, wouldn't it behoove us to have that info sooner rather than later?

Crossposted with TheGreenGrok.com, a blog on environmental happenings by Dean Bill Chameides

.

 

Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok

Comments

[heian120]

11:07 AM on 11/16/2011

the gov will regulate shale gas extraction - and we need the gas. anything to get us off foreign oil

[energydem]

11:55 PM on 11/05/2011

Fugitive emissions are easy to control. There is equipment to do so and its use should be required. The emissions are actually product with value so there is alot of incentive to capture emissions from production. Regardless production represents a very small amount of emissions from gas -- the doubling of EIA inventories is still double a small number. Gas CO2 combustion emissions compared to coal are far less (half) which is why IEA and anyone who knows what they are talking about (not Howarth, please), knows gas has to be part of the climate solution until we can bring down the costs of the alternatives (in spite of recent declines, solar PV is still five times more expensive than gas power generation), scale these alternatives (very tough) and manage their intermittency (a growing problem as the impacts of intermittency are now starting to be seen on baseload power generation).

[dknowles60]

12:17 AM on 11/14/2011

great one

[Genders]

07:08 PM on 11/15/2011

"Fugitive emissions are easy to control." Obviously not since they are major source of GHG.

In fact, because of the leaks, the total GHG emission from fracked gas is worse than coal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/highway-to-hell-why-shale_b_847710.html

Fracking is worse than coal.

[Genders]

08:06 PM on 11/04/2011

Good article thanks.

There is a place for natural unfracked gas in our energy future.

N gas is a potential planet killer, it has happened before. We SHOULD use up the n gas to prevent another Methane extinction. But most of pour energy needs to come from rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

03:35 PM on 11/08/2011

"There is a place for natural unfracked gas in our energy future. "

Yep, the place for unfracked gas is somewhere between your imagination and the back burner.

The reality is that they're fracking is a booming industry. More fracking now than ever before, and fracking growing every day.

The greenos like to print nonesense to try and stop it, but they can't. My cheap heating bill proves it.

[dknowles60]

12:18 AM on 11/14/2011

very great one

[Genders]

10:06 PM on 11/14/2011

Your point is the polluters are winning? OOOOh I agree.

Your cheap energy bill will be more than made up for with your high medical and water bills.

[Bill Chameides]

12:29 PM on 12/13/2011

It would be very hard to "use up" all the methane stored as clathrates. The global reservoir is thought to be comparable to the combined potentially recoverable coal, natural gas, and oil resources.

[MrBIgp]

02:19 PM on 11/04/2011

The silver bullet is not natural gas, its the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. It can replace ALL of our fossil fuels.
http://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4

[Genders]

08:06 PM on 11/04/2011

LFTR is a scam http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/8-4-the-isotope-separation-plant/
great critique of LFTR an nuke power in general

Pro LFTR article also shows how bad LWR is and how the LFTR waste still needs to be stored for 300 years.
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf

And here is an article on the MANY technical problems yet to be solved to build a LFTR
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/15/568428/-MSR-LFTR-Developmental-Issues

proof if you needed it that LFTR reactors are not ready to go:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/multiMissionMSR.html

[MrBIgp]

10:55 PM on 11/04/2011

I've read all of these article before. No one EVER said LFTR wouldn't produce dangerous waster. No one said you couldn't make a bomb out of U233 only that no one would want to. The LFTR produces LESS waste which has a shorter half life than the waste of LWR.
No one said that LFTR is "ready to go" . The technology needs to be developed. There are technical problems which need to be solved, but that is the case with any new energy system - including solar and wind. LFTR has the potential of giving us an inexhaustibles supply of the safest, cleanest and cheapest energy humanity has ever known. It is certainly worth investing in.
Alvin Weinberg, co-patent holder of the light water reactor, believed LFTR was a far better reactor in both safety and economics.
Edward Teller described LFTR as the best of all possible reactors. China is developing LFTR and will almost certainly succeed.

[jb6789]

08:19 AM on 11/08/2011

You've referenced an article that suggests the Nuclear Industry is not behind Thorium and therefore it must be a scam. The nuclear industry views Thorium as a direct threat becasue its very business model depends on costly SOLID FUEL fabrication to make profits. LFTR essentially takes the razor blade (solid fuel) out of Gillette's (the Nuclear Power) business!

As for other countries like India, they intend to use their plentiful Thorium sources to supplement Uranium in a conventional solid fuel operation. This is nothing more than an extension of the status quo and will leave countries like India with the same problems as our current approach in the West.

[lbsaltzman]

11:10 AM on 11/05/2011

I see nothing that convinces me. Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal remain the safest renewable soruces for energy. They all have the virtue of zero radioactive waste.

[MrBIgp]

06:48 PM on 11/05/2011

What would convince you?

[jb6789]

08:28 AM on 11/08/2011

These technologies have there place and should be aggressively pursued to get us off the carbon-based fuel addiction. However, these technologies, coupled with conservation, are not sufficient to keep pace with population growth and massive energy demand from a quickly growing Asian middle class. Along with peak oil and an aging nuclear fleet, we need other technologies to essentially replace coal, oil, gas, and solid fuel nuclear within the next 50 years. Outside of LFTR, no other known technology can realistically deliver on these energy requirements in this time-frame.

If you believe otherwise, then I know of a "terrific" 9-9-9 plan you might also like to buy.