Fracking’s Slow-Motion Train Wreck Revealed In New Report

Actually the Audubon Society supports wind energy.

NIMBYs are pretty generic. They oppose anything that has an impact on their lives.

Mills grind grain. The term “windmills” is used by anti-wind people. Perhaps you weren’t aware of that. Wind turbines is the accepted terminology in the industry.

We may, in fact, run out of NG. We clearly could at some point, NG supplies are finite. The industry likes to talk about a 100 year supply (or something like that). If you look at the known and proven supplies and don’t include the speculative stuff and look at how much we’ve increased use in the last few years you’ll see that we could see supplies tightening in a couple of decades.

NG is a useful tool for helping us get coal shut down. But NG is as well a nasty character, just a slightly less nasty character. The quicker we can get both coal and NG out of our lives the better.

American oil does help the American economy. And,overall, oil extracted in the US probably causes less environmental damage than in places such as some African countries where environmental regulations never come into play.

“Audubon strongly supports properly sited wind power as a renewable energy source that helps reduce the threat posed to birds and people by climate change. However, we also advocate that wind power facilities should be planned, sited, and operated in ways that minimize harm to birds and other wildlife, and we advocate that wildlife agencies should ensure strong enforcement of the laws that protect birds and other wildlife.”

http://policy.audubon.org/wind-power-overview-0

I’ve never seen anyone advocate killing eagles.

—

I’ll copy this over-

The shale revolution has been greatly overhyped. Not too long ago the estimate of recoverable oil from the Monterey formation was cut by 96%, and with that cut the estimate of total U.S reserves was cut by two thirds.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/22/two-thirds-write-down-us-shale-oil-gas-explodes-fracking-myth

Previous to that the U.S Geological Survey had cut reserve estimates of the Marcellus shale by 80%.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-23/u-s-to-slash-marcellus-shale-gas-estimate-80-.html

It now appears that U.S. shale production will peak by 2020, perhaps as early as 2017.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/06/shale-oil-boom-over-energy-revolution-blackouts

Fracking wells have precipitous decline rates and maintaining production means drilling more wells in less and less favorable plays. The economics are not propitious.

http://assets-production-webvanta-com.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/000000/03/97/original/reports/DBD-report-FINAL.pdf

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/7245/#comment-87242

—

In 2010 the EIA reported we had 2192 tcf (trillion cubic feet). But only 842 tcf was in known and proven gas fields. Another 736 tcf is ‘possible’ – there are places where we would expect to find more gas. And the final 614 tcf is labeled ‘speculative’, whatever that means.

I can’t see the sense in basing our future plans on the ‘speculated’ part, so let’s limit ourselves to the 1578 tcf that we are likely to find.

In 2010 we were burning 24 tcf per year. If we continued to burn at that rate we would exhaust our supply in 66 years. But we’ve increased our burn rate.

In 2010 the US generated 988 TWh (Terawatt hours) of electricity using natural gas. In 2012 that number increased to around 1,470 TWh. A 49% increase in burn rate. If we increased our annual burn rate by 50% over 2010 rates then our ‘known, probable and possible’ supply runs out in 44 years.

If we export and start using NG on large scale for transportation isn’t it likely that we’ll burn/export at a significantly higher rate than 36 tcf?

Then in January 2012 the US Department of Energy lowered the 842 tcf ‘known and proven’ to 482 tcf based on more detailed information provided by gas explorations in shale deposits in the preceding year. Wells are slowing production much faster than was expected. That’s a 43% drop.

So, double the 2010 burn rate and you cut our supply from 66 to 33 years. Downgrade the supply by 43% based on recent well findings and we’re now at 19 years.

That is not a long future for natural (and coalbed) gas.

Perhaps you should contact the DOE and give them the real numbers.

Won’t they be surprised…..

I don’t disagree with most of what you say. I do think NG will have a minimal impact on EV growth.

EVs are likely to hurt NG. Because EVs will need to charge, on average, less than 3 hours per day and spend 90% of their lives parked EVs could be excellent dispatchable loads. Charge them when there’s excellent wind and solar generation and drop them out when the supply:demand ratio tightens.

That will mean that we can build more wind and solar without subjecting wind and solar to periods when there is no market for their product. Charge off the peaks and all that extra build out can cover demand at other times. This will mean less of a role for NG.

Or the NE could use hydro and tidal along with offshore wind.

We’d be smart to look at NG as our last resort rather than turning to it first. Putting NG last means less CO2 as well as stretching our NG supply as long as possible.

Yes I admit it, I’m paid by the gas industry to write comments in this forum.

Thank you and I had no idea. We live in DC and we have a south-facing roof ideal for solar energy, and we intend to get as much of our energy from the sun as possible. Our next car will be an electric, not a gas or diesel, or even a plug-in hybrid but a 100% electric vehicle. I’m not against solar, or wind, and also recognize that our country’s economy was saved by fracking, and our my two children breathe cleaner air thanks to fracking.

Gene, we’re exactly on the same page. New York state is a microcosm of the European environmental nuts, and thankfully most other states are more interested in scientific rationale, instead of fraudulent propaganda like “Gasland.”

You should read, The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy ..

In Germany the unintended consequence is that diesel is now the engine of choice to drive over 100 mph on the Autobahn. At high speeds all engines are inefficient but diesels make high speed driving easier because the gas tank doesn’t have to be filled as often. From everything I have read the Tesla Models S won’t sell in high volumes in Germany because the range on the Autobahn is less than 150 miles and electricity is expensive.