"Natural gas accounts for about 23 percent of global energy use."
Seems obvious -- we NEED to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Do we want to retain control of key U.S. economic inputs and therefore our economy? When/if a "crash" occurs due to our inaction, we won't be able to say there weren't signals....... (more examples: Nov 2007 and Oct 2007).
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
What are the proved reserves of natural gas?
Here's a chart from the CIA (yes, that CIA). Russia: #1 in the world with 47.6 trillion cubic meters; United States: #7 in the world with 5.5 trillion cubic meters. Iran is #2 with 26.4 trillion cubic meters.
There is a very interesting article in the business section of a recent The Capital Times (sorry I can't find it now) about the world market in LNG. Natural gas used to be burned relatively near where it was found, usually transported by pipeline. But within the last 5 years, liquid natural gas (LNG) means it can be shipped everywhere and so much more is available to places that don't have their own deposits.
But near the end, was something I had not known: the increased use of wind for electricity is resulting in increased use of natural gas.
Why? Because wind is not reliable, so natural gas generators are providing the "buffer" to insure a steady power output. They can be quickly put on line when the wind speed is low and cut back when it increases.
But consider that here in Wisconsin, the load factor for wind turbines is about 20%. That is, they actually produce only about 20% of their maximum potential, mostly due to lack of ideal winds, and also to down time for repairs. Which means that for every Kw of wind built, 5 times as much natural gas generation capacity must be built to cover calm weather. More dependence on wind means more dependence on natural gas. So is wind really "Green", or "renewable"?
And in pricing wind power, the cost of the natural gas supplement should be factored in. Here, that means for every unit of "free" wind, we must pay for 4 units of natural gas. Reply to this
Wind, natural gas, coal, solar.....what's the best energy mix?
Let's start paying the external costs of our energy use at the time we use the energy - this will lead us to the optimum energy mix.
The best way to start paying these external costs - enact a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy (surprise).
A more accurate way (I think) to look at the example in your comment -- the wind power is displacing non-renewable energy use and the associated external costs; good things.
Wind and solar energy can be stored, but it's not inexpensive. Using your numbers, we could build five times the required power need and store the energy. We can also eliminate energy waste and conserve energy. (this will happen when we start paying the full costs of our energy use) Paying the full costs will not only produce the optimum mix, it will also result in the production of the optimum amount of energy.
****************
Who in the U.S. is paying the costs of global warming and the full-cycle costs of nuclear power?
Wind, natural gas, coal, solar.....what's the best energy mix?
Hi,
You left one big option out. Hint "N"
For Wisconsin to depend entirely on wind without the natural gas buffer, excess wind in the spring (March and April) would need to be stored for release during the summer (July and August). I don't know of a practical way to store enough energy to power the entire state for 3 or 4 months. And there would need to be an extra 20% or so to cover deviations from the expected averages. I can't see charging up enough scuba tanks to do that.
Given that, I say "more wind = more natural gas, by a factor of about 5". OK, that is better than coal, but still a long way form being either Green or "renewable". Reply to this
Leaving nuclear power out of that very short list wasn't a mistake. Going forward, I don't believe nuclear will be a prominent part of our energy mix because it's not economically viable when all of its costs are considered.
