Is Natural Gas the Answer?

Posted by Lisa Carey

How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on foreign oil? Natural gas is getting a new look as the answer to both environmental questions.
Governments around the world are looking for ways to reduce pollution, and companies are anticipating taxes and penalties on excess carbon emission.
Natural gas is being touted as cleaner than coal and cheaper than oil. Natural gas isn’t a new discovery, though, is it? Yes, and no.
Natural gas has been on the market a long time, but even a decade ago, the supply just couldn’t keep up with demand. Plants that wanted to use natural gas had to install equipment for natural gas AND coal, because the supply and price of natural gas were inconsistent.
Coal and Natural Gas Facts and Figures:
• Currently, approximately 27 percent of the United States carbon emissions come from coal-fuel power plants.
• Coal-fired plants generate about 44 percent of the electricity in the United States.
• Less than 25% of the United States’ power is generated from natural gas. That’s doubled from ten years ago, with still a lot of room to grow.
• Today, with the introduction of horizontal drilling technology, the United States has a 90-year supply of natural gas at the current rate of nearly 23 trillion cubic feet per year.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation, the world’s largest oil supplier, recently spent $30 billion to acquire XTO Energy Inc., making Exxon the country’s number one producer of natural gas.
• Is the United States government interested in natural gas as an alternative?
- This summer, President Obama included natural gas, along with coal and oil, as energy sources to move away from, while promoting alternative sources such as solar, wind and biofuels.
- Congress’ energy debates have focused on finding clean coal in order to save the thousands of mining jobs in West Virginia and across the country.
• The government may not be buying it, but power plants are.
- Even though the government isn’t waving the natural gas flag, utilities are surrendering to the idea that natural gas emits half as much carbon as coal to generate the same amount of electricity. Although coal is still cheap, the price for natural gas is at a seven-year low.
- One after another, power plants are scrapping coal-related upgrades. For example:
Progress Energy Inc. scrapped a $2 billion plan this month to add scrubbers needed to reduce sulfur emissions at four older coal-fired power plants in North Carolina is instead redirecting some of those funds toward cleaner burning gas-fired plants.
“Everyone saw it pretty quickly,” said Lloyd Yates, CEO of Progress Energy Inc., “Out went coal, in comes gas. The environmental component of coal is where we see instability”.
- It is a similar story from the Nevada power company, NV Energy Inc., which canceled plans for a $5 billion coal-fired plant early this year after Senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid made it clear he would block its approval, and executives became more concerned about the costs of meeting future environmental statutes.
“It was obvious to us that Congress or the EPA or both were going to act to reduce carbon emissions,” stated NV’s CEO, Michael Yackira, “Without understanding the economic ramifications, it would have been foolish for us to go forward.” NV Energy was already getting 2/3 of their power from gas.
- Power plants are obviously looking to save money and avoid financial costs of environmental emissions. Beyond the “costs” to the environment, there are other “costs” of coal. A recent Physicians for Social Responsibility report lays out the health risks of continuing to use coal.
Coal burning is credited for contributing to:
• asthma
• oxidative stress
• pulmonary inflammation
• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• chronic bronchitis
• emphysema
• lung cancer
Joshua Frank, writing for Counterpunch, says, “It is not simply about cleaning up the coal process; it is about halting its production altogether… A good first step is to avoid falling for the clean coal campaign favored by the current U.S. president. Clean coal, says Frank, is “nothing more than an advertising motto conjured up by high paid PR firms.”

Is natural gas really a good alternative?
“The question now is how does this change the energy discussion in the U.S. and by how much?” says Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and chairman of IHS CERA, an energy consultancy. “This is domestic energy…it’s low carbon, it’s low cost and it’s abundant. When you add it up, it’s revolutionary.”
Many environmentalists argue, while natural gas isn’t their first choice, as it does have to be removed from the earth, it still may be a better temporary solution than coal.
This debate has all of the major players: jobs, job loss, the environment, health and, of course, lobbyists. It will be interesting to see if natural gas gets a leg up to stand on.

Popularity: 1% [?]