Patrick,

Thanks for putting Randy's concerns to rest. Your arguments are sound and your data inarguable. I can trust you because I am certain you have no horse in the race.I am going to start leaving the doors on my home open in winter.

Love,

Gullible.

The following quote from the last paragraph took my breath away:

• "to displace half the coal we now use with gas, we’d need to complete 30,000 to 50,000 new wells a year for decades to come"

Suddenly, I don't feel like going out to buy that plasma screen TV anymore. Better go for a trip in the wilderness while there is any wilderness left.

I am deeply disappointed that the author dismisses using LESS energy so quickly. Does he wish for a thousand wells in each pristine valley?

This is very disheartening.

There is indeed a lot more natural gas in North America than we thought, and I agree with some of the points made in the article.

We should keep in mind however that natural gas is still a depletable resource and its role should be one of providing us more time to make the transition to renewables, time we desperately need since a switchover to predominately renewable energy will take most of the 21st century and that assumes that we come up with a viable electricty-based transportation system (the odds are good) and cost-effective large-scale energy storage techniques to smooth out the intermittency of renewable energy sources (the jury is out on this one).

Also we should keep in mind that there is a substantial concern with shale gas regarding possible contamination of aquifers.

As the switch away from coal towards more sustainable sources of energy takes place you will need to look at gas no doubt about it. But gas should not be your only option and should as our technology is developed primarily be backup for wind solar and bio fuels. Also gas can and will play an important role as a clean and co2 friendly alternative to diesel in transportation.

Gas has the advantage over other fuels that each carbonatom holds 4 hydrogenatoms and thus contains more energy per carbonatom when burnt. The ratio is 2 to one when compared with coal and 3-2 when compared with diesel. But gas also has the advantage that it burns very cleanly.

In Denmark we have at mix of energy sources of which coal is an important ingredient today. Our electricity is produced from 20 % wind, 30 % biomaterial (incineration of straw and waste) 20 % ng 10 % hydro, 10% nuclear and 10% oil and other sources. The year 2050 plan proposed by the engneering society for a co2 neutral society calls for 20 % increase in wind and 20 % increase in bio, but also a 20% reduction in consumption.

To become truely carbon neutral you need to conserve energy and americans have the great advantage that they use excessive amounts so there are many opportunities for improvement.  One example ; You will shortly see crossover vehicles or hybrids running on alternative fuels to gas and diesel,- that will significantly improve fuel efficiency while also running on cheaper and cleaner fuel ei NG. One example is the Ford S max from Langford that does 80 miles to the gallon for an ordinary midsize 7 seater. It is fitted with at micro gasturbine and batteries,- and weighs no more than a conventional version of the same car.

http://www.lpengines.com/news_detail.php?id=10

The switch away from coal towards gas and sustainable sources will not involve "30- 50.000 new wells for decades to come". Much less will do it.

The way I see it gas will play the role of backup for wind and solar ( as will incineration of waste and straw ) and it will play a key part in transportation.

You lost all credibility as soon as you mentioned Sarah Palin.  You betcha!

Very interesting article.

A few quick points:

1)  It does indeed appear that adequate shale gas reserves have been discovered in North America to increase production to 28 TCF/yr and to sustain it at those levels for at least the next few decades.  In addition, shale gas exploration in Europe is finally beginning in earnest.

2)  Electricity generation from coal and natural gas could also be partially offset by cultivating and burning biomass, as has been done in Europe for the last 20 years.  This would be far more efficient, cheaper, and environmentally benign than producing biofuels such as corn ethanol or soy biodiesel.

3)  There also appear to be huge reserves of natural gas in gas hydrates, the potential of which is being researched now in North America, Japan, and India.  Development of these reserves would be contingent on further research on environmental impact.

Shale gas is a strong North American energy asset.  Proven and economic water management strategies are available.  Go to www.fountainquail.com for details.

 Very nice post Ole.

I would hope we use our natural gas wisely and reserve as much as possible for future generations. 

Two ways to get the most from NG is to use it in hybrid solar/NG thermal electricity generation plants and in CAES (compressed air energy storage).

We can build plants that use sunlight to make steam during the sunny part of the day and then run them using NG as needed during the dark hours.  That way we use no fuel during the day and get double use out of the turbines and transmission lines during evening peak hours.  And we have the NG ability available on dark days as a solar backup.

We are building, and must build,  renewables to service peak hour demand.   As we install wind turbines to meet peak demand we create surplus off peak energy which can be stored in underground caverns and later used to power turbines.  To make this system work best, a relatively small amount of heat needs to be used to further expand the compressed air, and this is where NG comes into the picture.

CAES is already being used and is the least expensive way to store energy.  Least expensive by a very large margin.  

If we can use NG as a bridging technology to get us off of imported petroleum and reduce our carbon output, that's a great thing.   But the final goal should be to get all carbon out of our personal transportation systems.

No!