Excellent read and you’re correct, CCG are marvels pieces of equipment.
If one truly wanted to accurately calculate the value of wind and solar, they’d only look at wind and solar as ‘Fuel’ savers. The value of wind and solar is only the value of gas/fuel they save. And as you do correctly pointed out, when you use single cycle engines to back up wind and solar, you don’t save that much gas. So grid wide, wind and solar only have marginal value for all the subsidies we spend on them.
"Today we deep dive fracking and shale, the energy source that put Peak Oil concerns on the back burner for a decade and a half. According to recent analysis by Goehring and Rozencwajg Shale field production is showing signs of sliding down the backside of Hubbert’s curve. What are the geopolitical and economic ramifications? Are there more shale booms on the horizon overseas? What are the implications for nuclear which has been sidelined in deregulated markets by cheap abundant gas? Leigh Goehring joins me for a detailed discussion"
The End of Abundant Energy: Shale Production and Hubbert's Peak:
Remember the Natural Gas crisis in the 1970s? The Oil & Gas industry, backed up by the EIA, claimed there was ample conventional gas to meet all the rising demand, until there wasn't. Resulting in shutdown industry, closed schools and seniors freezing to death in their homes.
Fortunately, CCGT run even better and more efficiently off of methanol which can easily be made from any biomass or carbonaceous waste, stranded or flare gas, cement plant flue gas, nuclear power & seawater CO2 and coal. The DOE built a demo IGCC coal power plant that could coproduce methanol for 50 cents/gal. And methanol is easier and more efficient to transport than NG or LNG at higher energy density. As well methanol being an excellent fuel for gasoline engines. And better than diesel in fully optimized high compression engines. More efficient, much smaller, more torque, and much lower emissions.
It's all about risk management. Putting your eggs in one basket and all that. And wind/solar are so dependent on gas that they are also just more eggs in the same basket. And that is even much worse for the majority of nations that lack sufficient gas reserves for their domestic energy needs.
And the US is heading for a World of Hurt, if it doesn't smarten up. They are foolhardy exporting all that LNG, when it only has 18yrs proven gas reserves vs Russia with 68yrs, Iran & Qatar with 140yrs. The US is being setup for a big energy crisis, and I think it is deliberate.
I have mixed feelings about exporting LNG for just that reason. Plus it is increasing the cost of natural gas because it is evening out the price disparity of gas in North America versus Europe.
And by the way, I favor a blend of natural gas, nuclear, and hydro, not just natural gas.
No coal? You can avoid coal by pushing nuclear hard like they did in the 70s, but so far not a hint of a sign of that happening, even China is dragging it's heels on Nuclear. Corruption, no doubt about it.
I have the same concerns about LNG. Regrettably I don't have a good handle on the feasibility of discovering more natural gas formations in the US. Having said that I have been following the fiasco in the Northeast. States like Connecticut have decommissioned all of their coal-fired capacity and replaced it with natural gas. Now the state finds itself 60% reliant on natural gas capacity and the remaining 40% on the Millstone nuclear Power plant. To make matters worse the state does not have enough capacity in its natural gas pipeline network - so that every winter they are at risk of shortages for their natural gas fleet. They are unable to build a pipeline from the Marcellus which would have to cross New York State - so they buy liquefied natural gas on the international market because of the Jones act. In this particular case building coal fired capacity would probably help. Particularly if they commissioned the new generation of supercritical or ultra supercritical power plants. The coal could undoubtedly be carried by rail from states like West Virginia. In any event Connecticut is an accident waiting to happen.
You have sold me on natural gas as a bridge between renewables and fossil fuels. I am wondering though, do you have a graph or data showing the improvement in efficiency from the Newcomen steam engine, to the Watt engine, to gas turbines, to CCGT? Seems like the improvement would be drastic.
The book "Energy and Civilization a History" by Vaclav Smil contains a graph of the thermal efficiency of all types of steam engines beginning with Newcomen. It is found in chapter 5 titled --- fossil fuels primarily electricity and renewables.
There is no bridge to renewables. There is a thing called the energy cliff upon which it is inevitable that "the renewables", by which they mean wind & solar, will fall off of. The EROI of Wind & Solar is so low that it they are a physically impossible replacement for fossil fuels.
The energy future is Nuclear. We have no other choice.
Excellent read and you’re correct, CCG are marvels pieces of equipment.
If one truly wanted to accurately calculate the value of wind and solar, they’d only look at wind and solar as ‘Fuel’ savers. The value of wind and solar is only the value of gas/fuel they save. And as you do correctly pointed out, when you use single cycle engines to back up wind and solar, you don’t save that much gas. So grid wide, wind and solar only have marginal value for all the subsidies we spend on them.
That's the truth that few people seem to understand.
Great piece. Thanks.
Great post. Thanks.
I wouldn't be so sure about Shale Gas (& Tight Oil):
Have We Reached Peak Shale?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzWGnbI9nw
"Today we deep dive fracking and shale, the energy source that put Peak Oil concerns on the back burner for a decade and a half. According to recent analysis by Goehring and Rozencwajg Shale field production is showing signs of sliding down the backside of Hubbert’s curve. What are the geopolitical and economic ramifications? Are there more shale booms on the horizon overseas? What are the implications for nuclear which has been sidelined in deregulated markets by cheap abundant gas? Leigh Goehring joins me for a detailed discussion"
The End of Abundant Energy: Shale Production and Hubbert's Peak:
https://info.gorozen.com/2022-q4-commentary-peak-oil
Remember the Natural Gas crisis in the 1970s? The Oil & Gas industry, backed up by the EIA, claimed there was ample conventional gas to meet all the rising demand, until there wasn't. Resulting in shutdown industry, closed schools and seniors freezing to death in their homes.
Fortunately, CCGT run even better and more efficiently off of methanol which can easily be made from any biomass or carbonaceous waste, stranded or flare gas, cement plant flue gas, nuclear power & seawater CO2 and coal. The DOE built a demo IGCC coal power plant that could coproduce methanol for 50 cents/gal. And methanol is easier and more efficient to transport than NG or LNG at higher energy density. As well methanol being an excellent fuel for gasoline engines. And better than diesel in fully optimized high compression engines. More efficient, much smaller, more torque, and much lower emissions.
As for shale gas:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-greens-should-love-fracking
We will see. I have been seeing incorrect predictions of the end of the shale gas boom for the last 15 years.
For now there is more than enough to accelerate shale gas production throughout the world.
It's all about risk management. Putting your eggs in one basket and all that. And wind/solar are so dependent on gas that they are also just more eggs in the same basket. And that is even much worse for the majority of nations that lack sufficient gas reserves for their domestic energy needs.
And the US is heading for a World of Hurt, if it doesn't smarten up. They are foolhardy exporting all that LNG, when it only has 18yrs proven gas reserves vs Russia with 68yrs, Iran & Qatar with 140yrs. The US is being setup for a big energy crisis, and I think it is deliberate.
I have mixed feelings about exporting LNG for just that reason. Plus it is increasing the cost of natural gas because it is evening out the price disparity of gas in North America versus Europe.
And by the way, I favor a blend of natural gas, nuclear, and hydro, not just natural gas.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-need-to-complete-the-third-energy
No coal? You can avoid coal by pushing nuclear hard like they did in the 70s, but so far not a hint of a sign of that happening, even China is dragging it's heels on Nuclear. Corruption, no doubt about it.
I have the same concerns about LNG. Regrettably I don't have a good handle on the feasibility of discovering more natural gas formations in the US. Having said that I have been following the fiasco in the Northeast. States like Connecticut have decommissioned all of their coal-fired capacity and replaced it with natural gas. Now the state finds itself 60% reliant on natural gas capacity and the remaining 40% on the Millstone nuclear Power plant. To make matters worse the state does not have enough capacity in its natural gas pipeline network - so that every winter they are at risk of shortages for their natural gas fleet. They are unable to build a pipeline from the Marcellus which would have to cross New York State - so they buy liquefied natural gas on the international market because of the Jones act. In this particular case building coal fired capacity would probably help. Particularly if they commissioned the new generation of supercritical or ultra supercritical power plants. The coal could undoubtedly be carried by rail from states like West Virginia. In any event Connecticut is an accident waiting to happen.
Thanks for the comment. New England desperately needs to build out natural gas pipelines.
But wind and solar and the cheapest form of energy according to LCOE analysis blah blah blah ... excellent post!
You have sold me on natural gas as a bridge between renewables and fossil fuels. I am wondering though, do you have a graph or data showing the improvement in efficiency from the Newcomen steam engine, to the Watt engine, to gas turbines, to CCGT? Seems like the improvement would be drastic.
No, I do not. That would be an interesting graphic, though. Just the difference between Newcomen and Watt was huge.
The book "Energy and Civilization a History" by Vaclav Smil contains a graph of the thermal efficiency of all types of steam engines beginning with Newcomen. It is found in chapter 5 titled --- fossil fuels primarily electricity and renewables.
That is awesome. I will have to check it out.
There is no bridge to renewables. There is a thing called the energy cliff upon which it is inevitable that "the renewables", by which they mean wind & solar, will fall off of. The EROI of Wind & Solar is so low that it they are a physically impossible replacement for fossil fuels.
The energy future is Nuclear. We have no other choice.