

Natural Gas: Fuel for the future? - brkumar
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/natural-gas

======
beat
The end result of the 21st century will be that we will use every single gram
of fossil fuel of every type (petroleum, natural gas, coal) that can be dug up
for less cost than wind/solar. The more reserves we find, the more carbon
winds up in the atmosphere. Environmental handwringing will be about as
effective as standing in front of an oncoming train and whispering "stop,
please". At best, the environmentalists will succeed in slowing fossil fuel
consumption down by a decade or two before we hit the inevitable wall of it no
longer being economically viable.

Meanwhile, we'll slam into Hubbert's Peak at the global level some years
before the dinosaur farts run out, resulting in a steep drop in energy
availability and a steep increase in cost. This will send shockwaves through
the global economy, and set off resource wars the likes of which we've never
seen.

If we're very, very smart, and very, very lucky, we won't see half the
population of the Earth wiped out in resource wars and famine during this
century. :(

~~~
joshuahedlund
That's a rather pessimistic view that reminds me of past views that proved too
pessimistic; I don't think we'll slam into anything. Solar costs continue to
drop exponentially[0] and it's possible that it will be cheaper than fossil
fuels within a couple of decades. Whether it gets there or not, it will likely
keep dropping, and the "dinosaur farts" won't run out[1], they'll just rise in
price to meet the cost of extraction until other things are more viable.
Rising prices spur demand for more efficient uses, and eventually through a
combination of reduced demand and alternative energy sources, we all switch
over without a big crisis. Not saying it's the guaranteed or even most likely
scenario, but in my opinion we're not so doomed we need to be "very, very
lucky".

[0][http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-
cheaper...](http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-cheaper-than-
fossil-fuels/)

[1][http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-
if-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-
run-out-of-oil/309294/)

~~~
mark-r
No matter how cheap solar energy becomes, it won't be a complete solution
until the energy storage problem is solved. I don't see the same rate of
progress on that. If you can't store the energy you'll need a backup that can
supply the missing power when the sun isn't shining - you'll need to keep
building the old fashioned power plants even if you don't run them as often.

Unfortunately there's no guarantee that prices will rise at the time and pace
required for efficient uptake of new technologies. The easiest way to reduce
demand is to tank the economy. We got a taste of that in 2008, and I'm not
looking forward to it happening again.

------
ambiate
The article states: 'a licensed professional can only tamper with an emissions
system.' This is obviously not true, because the person who stole my catalytic
converter most likely did not have a license. Much like the hundreds of
thousands of diesel based Mercedes Benz with a BB in the EGR valve to increase
fuel economy, power, and smoothness.

In Texas, I see a lot of trucks from the oil fields which are fitted to run on
dirty diesel. Every once in a while, you see a natural gas truck, but it is
rare.

I was just looking into buying a natural gas dryer, water heater, and oven. I
get the same feeling of buying a Nexus phone and choosing a carrier versus
getting stuck in a contract. The initial lump sum will pay off in savings
within a year. My only worries revolve around repairs.

------
DennisP
If we really want to use natural gas for transportation, an easier path might
be to use it to synthesize gasoline and diesel. A barrel of synthetic oil from
methane costs about $60.

Before doing that, it might be a good idea to fix the methane emissions from
fracking, and figure out how long those wells are really going to last.
There's a lot of skepticism about that "100-year supply."

------
cfesta9
We have seen a new fleet of taxi cabs here in Chicago. They run on compressed
natural gas. I got to ride in a VPG a few weeks ago. The driver liked the car
but said the biggest problem is mileage. 9-10 mpg in the city. I like the idea
of CNG, of course there are kinks that need to be worked out. Forklifts have
been running on CNG for years so why not cars.

New Auto Company: Built in Indiana <http://www.vpgautos.com/>

Chicago Article about VPG Auto: [http://taxicabtimes.com/compressed-natural-
gas-fuels-expansi...](http://taxicabtimes.com/compressed-natural-gas-fuels-
expansion-of-accessible-taxicabs-in-chicago-p1944-1.htm)

~~~
pavs
Here in bangladesh (I think to some extend in india too) CNG is being
extensively used for the last 5-6 years.

We have more CNG station than mobile stations here. The price used to be 1/3rd
of mobile but because of CNG shortage it has gone up in recent times.

~~~
amalag
India mandated CNG for taxi's in many cities to combat air pollution. It has
had a significant effect to reduce air pollution.

------
justinhj
I was at first annoyed that coal was described as cheap in the article, and
then relieved to hear that in the US the EPA is adding the environmental cost
back into the equation. Hope that China follows in the reduction of coal
fueled power.

~~~
skittles
It's almost impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in the US currently
(EPA has driven up the cost). Current plants; however, produce cheap energy.
Where the EPA causes trouble is with "new source review". They punish energy
companies for improving existing plants. Want to make your plant more
efficient and cleaner? Then the EPA says it is a new plant and subject to the
new regulations. It is more cost effective to run dirty plants.

------
VandyILL
I think tranisitioning to natural gas is silly. Its at best a bridge
technology before an eventual tranisition to solar. Given the opportunity to
leapfrog a generation of technology and infrastructure while doing less damage
to the environment is a now brainer. Plus, investing in solar gives the US the
opportunity to liquiefy the natural gas and export it, helping the trade
imbalance and displacing the new coal fired plants being built abroad.

When building a power plant the expected return is usually about 40 years. We
shouldn't be asking ourselves what infrastructure we want in 5-10 years, but
how we want our energy infrastructure to look in 30-50 years. In 30 years I'm
pretty confident solar will be cheaper than natural gas, so why build out all
this infrastructure to switch to natural gas cars etc?

At best natural gas is a good resource for handling the intermittency problem
with solar. Gas power plants fire up and shut down very quick and efficiently
comared to other types of power. Thus they're a great compliment to a power
source that currently cannot be stored for night time use.

------
bitwize
Not if our supply of it depends on fracking.

~~~
gngeal
Well, natural gas, that's mostly methane. The good thing about methane is that
there are reasonable pathways leading to it from waste inputs, so if we ever
switch to synthetic methane, you won't have to upgrade your natural-gas-
powered stuff.

------
geedy
Natural gas prices are volatile at this point. Seems they have increased in
recent months:

[http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/coals-us-
comeback/2...](http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/coals-us-
comeback/20453?tag=search-river)

------
tocomment
I've been very interested in converting my vehicle to run on natural gas but I
haven't been able to find any services that do it, nor any price estimates.
(US east coast) Is this an area to consider starting a business?

~~~
svenkatesh
I don't mean to be a debbie-downer, but it probably isn't worth it.

To convert your car to use natural gas, you would have to buy a natural-gas
engine. These cost about 8k- 10k. You could recoup some of the money by
selling your old engine, but it is still a steep upfront cost.

Here's an article if you're interested in reading more:
[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/why-youre-
no...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/why-youre-not-driving-
natural-gas-powered-car-yet/65009/)

~~~
PeterisP
WTF? Normal engines are perfectly capable of running on natural gas, you need
to install some hardware, but not an engine replacement.

The original article states "Kits to do so cost anything from $12,000 to
$18,000" which feels quite strange, as in Eastern Europe the major car service
companies offer the kits for at most $1,200-1,500 with installation. Sure, the
car mechanics earn a bit more in USA, but it's not really that much labor and
the actual hardware should be cheaper in USA - all other hardware is, due to
larger scale and smaller taxes.

~~~
svenkatesh
No, normal engines cannot run using CNG, without experiencing extensive wear
and tear.

Also, I think you'll find that the cost of things in Eastern Europe is
commensurate with their earnings. You can't compare the cost of things there
with the cost of things in America, just like you can't compare the cost of a
home in India vs. the cost of a home in San Fransisco.

~~~
VLM
"No, normal engines cannot run using CNG, without experiencing extensive wear
and tear."

Well, that's a new once, since everything I've ever heard is the exact
opposite.

I know propane conversions run forever.

~~~
stonemetal
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-
to/maintenance/shou...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-
to/maintenance/should-you-convert-your-car-to-natural-gas) _The lower-pressure
gas travels to the engine, Chrysler's flex-fuel-capable Pentastar V-6. A flex-
fuel engine is important, since it has hardened valves and valve seats, which
are necessary for CNG operation._

Suggests there is something to worry about in a conversion for regular cars.

------
easymovet
One of the benefits of a pressurized fuel source is that you don't vent the
petrol saturated air in your tank to the atmosphere every time you fill it up.
About 4million cubic yards daily.

~~~
adlpz
Humorous comment: When I read something like _cubic yards_ I always think I'm
reading about some crazy variant of golf.

(I am used to the SI)

------
maeon3
I have a 2012 Honda insight Hybrid for about a year now.

In the Eco mode and normal driving it sustains about 48MPG mostly in city
driving. With lots of highway it goes up to 52MPG. It does this with
remarkable regenerative braking, running on electricity most of the time,
turning off the engine while you are in low energy consumption modes, and only
running the engine at target efficiency.

The future of energy in America is Black Gold, aka Petroleum. Imported from
various places in the world.

~~~
beat
Future for how long? 10 years? 25? 50? 500?

~~~
maeon3
This song of Oil running out has been playing constantly for the last 30
years. The reason you don't hear the "Peak Oil" song and narrative being
played anymore by the propaganda agencies in America is because the globe has
not even hit peak oil yet.

Global production of oil fell from a high point in 2005 at 74 mb/d, but has
since rebounded setting new records in both 2011 and 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil>

You and I will have vehicles drinking Petroleum for at least 10 years. At that
point there will be slow shifts to other fuel technologies.

~~~
VandyILL
One of the reasons the estimates for Peak Oil are off is because oil companies
only project the amount of oil they can economically recover. However, because
the price of oil continues to go up they start to consider more options
economical, such as tar sands. If you read literature on how these companies
determine the size of their reserves and how much oil is left that can be
extracted economcally, the answer is pretty much consistent at 40 years, but
this measure has never been an accurate account of the total amount of oil in
the ground, its just a number that makes sense for their business.

~~~
beat
It stops when EROEI hits 1:1, though, and it's no longer possible to get a net
positive energy result from recovery/refining. The tar sands are already in
the 3:1 range. Corn ethanol is even worse, 1.3:1.

In practice, it will stop before that, when the recovery costs exceed the cost
of wind/solar. In the meantime, it will continue to be LESS expensive than
unsubsidized wind/solar.

