says the tide has turned and new nat gas demand should flatten out and then decrease by 2040. Interesting that the decline in reliance on nat gas is due in part to the interruption of supplies from Russia New IEA report shows major change in global energy industry: ‘The beginning of the end’ (msn.com) The International Energy Agency (IEA) has released new data that suggests the “beginning of the end” for dirty fuel might have already begun. In the wide-ranging World Energy Outlook report, IEA has studied nations’ energy, climate, and industrial policies every year from 2019 until 2023 and estimated that global gas demand will decrease sharply by 2040. Axios journalist Ben Geman observed the positive outlook was down to factors such as surging production and demand for renewable energy, as well as decreasing gas stock from Russia because of the country’s invasion of Ukraine, which is leading buyers to seek alternative sources of fuel.
an alternative viewpoint. I don't think it is the burning of the nat gas as much as the methane leaks in the production process and the energy required to liquify it and then transport it across the ocean. The DOE seems to dismiss these elements in t their findings on new LNG terminals The Single Most Dangerous Expansion of Fossil Fuel in the World (msn.com) Between the carbon released when the LNG is burned, the methane that leaks along the way, and the energy that it takes to ship it, he found that exported LNG is much worse for the climate even than burning coal—in many cases, twice as bad. ..................... But instead of immediately halting new approvals for export facilities, or even asking Howarth for more details, the DOE issued a statement saying “Both [a] 2014 and 2019 analysis concluded that that the use of US LNG exports for electricity generation in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from a life cycle perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for electricity generation.”
It's still a fossil fuel although it's cleaner than other fossil fuels such as coal or petroleum-based liquid fuels (fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, etc).
America has its first "enhanced" geothermal power plant on-line, in Nevada. The plant drills deeper than a typical geothermal plant to access deeper sources of heat. The plant is rated for 3.5 MW. Google is helping to finance the project to support its massive data centers in Nevada. America's first 'enhanced' geothermal plant just got up and running
The geothermal plant (see above) has a power cost of about $450/MW-h, which is much more than what most people pay for their power. After some optimization, they hope to get the costs down to $45/MW-h within a dozen years.
Never understood why we weren't bigger into hydroelectric. I know some pacific northwest states eave it and their energy bills are pretty cheap comparatively.
Damming up rivers usually upsets ecosystems. California is in the process of tearing down dams on their rivers. Plus rainfall is not very reliable in most of the western states (south of Washington state and part of Oregon). In fact, the west was largely settled during the 1900's, which was considered the "wet" century in the 1,000-year cycle of the west (only about one century in ten is considered a wet century for the west; the other nine are dry to some extent or another). Hydroelectric was very big a century ago (80-120 years) when most of the dams were built. Labor and building materials for dams were also much cheaper than they are today. It is very expensive to do major projects in the U.S. nowadays.
I did not see any specific reference to their current cost being at or below $90/mwh. This seems like it would be very achievable given the experience we have with fracking. Where does the water come from that is forced down the well and comes back as steam?
My bad. I miscalculated the 90% reduction of cost to $45/MW-h. A current cost of $450/MW-h could be reduced by 90% to yield a future cost of $45/MW-h. I think the article was reluctant to state the current cost for fear that people would faint. That is a fairly unsupportable cost by current standards, but may not be terrible for a first attempt at a new technology.
