UNCONVENTIONAL GAS
AND THE FUTURE
John H Perkins, PhD
Kyiv, Ukraine
26 September 2013
THE BRIDGE IDEA
“Natural gas can serve
as a bridge fuel to a lowcarbon, sustainable
energy future.”
John Podesta and Timothy Wirth, “Natural Gas—A Bridge Fuel for the 21st Century”
August 10, 2009
(http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/files/webfmuploads/CAP%20EFC%20NG%20Memo%208-08-09.pdf)
The Question
In unconventional gas a bridge to
sustainable energy?
Multiple answers: Yes, Maybe, No
My answer
– At best: Maybe, but not likely
– Most likely: No
To build a sustainable energy future:
– Invest in efficiency and renewable energy
– Put price on carbon
Framework:
“Energy Systems”
Energy: essential
Fossil fuels = 84%
Fuels specialized...
…interchangeable
Expensive facilities
Slow turnover
Change affects all
parts of system
Northside Generating Station, Florida
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cfpp/CFPPs/SuccessStories.htm
Ukraine’s Energy System
Ukraine: The Big Problems
Energy insecurity (gas)
– Physical
– Economic
– Political
Climate change
Resource depletion
Ukraine – Russia Gas Dispute, 2009
Source: The Other Russia and the BBC
Ukraine: Climate Change
“In Central and Eastern Europe, summer
precipitation is projected to decrease,
causing higher water stress. Health risks
due to heat waves are projected to
increase. Forest productivity is expected to
decline and the frequency of peat-land
fires to increase.” (IPCC, Working Group II, Climate Change
2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for
Policy Makers, p. 12, 2007)
Security and Climate Change
Short term
– Supply
– Costs
Long term
– Climate change
Sheffield & Wood, Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from
multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations, Climate Dynamics 31 (2008): 79 – 105.
New Gas: Questions for
Security and Climate
Production costs – Pipeline access – Prices?
And then what?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Replace imported gas or coal for electricity?
Replace nuclear for electricity?
Replace coal for industry?
Expand energy use?
Efficiency investments?
Renewable investments?
Expand exports?
Expand energy use?
Replace
Interactions
nuclear for
with
Replace
electricity?
renewable
imported
investments?
gas for
electricity?
Replace
coal for
Expand
electricity?
exports?
Interactions
with efficiency
investments?
Replace
coal for
industry?
Who Decides?
Producing companies?
National government?
Regional or local government?
Private citizens?
With what criteria?
– Sales price & profit?
– National security?
– Climate change?
Ukraine: Wind Resources
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, “Ukraine Country Profile,” 2010
Solar Resources
http://solargis.info/doc/_pics/freemaps/1000px/ghi/SolarGIS-Solar-map-Europe-en.png
Conclusions
Think energy systems
Unconventional gas:
– May or may not help security
– May or may not help climate change
– May or may not help sustainability
Energiewende:
– Provides best goals (for all countries)
– Directs investments in right direction
– Provides more manageable impacts
– Leaves gas in the ground
THANK YOU!
Contact Information
John H Perkins, PhD
236 Cambridge Avenue
Kensington, CA 94708
perkinsj@evergreen.edu
510-647-9434
World Energy Flows (2007)
UKRAINE: Insecurity (gas), 2010
130.5 MTOE = 5.2 quads
Hydro
0.9%
Nuclear
17.9%
Natural gas
Biofuels & waste
1.1%
Oil
Gas
42.2%
Coal & peat
27.9%
Coal/peat
Biofuels & waste
Hydro
Nuclear
Oil
10.1%
Prepared from: http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/UKRAINE4.pdf
World Energy Flows (2007)
Private
companies
and state
enterprises
Competition
Communities
and jobs
Customers
and
communities
dependent
on energy
services
Ukraine: Solar Resources
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, “Ukraine Country Profile,” 2010
Total World Energy Supply
(2008, 492 EJ)
IPCC, Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources (2011)
Private
companies
and state
enterprises
Competition
Communities
and jobs
Customers
and
communities
dependent
on energy
services
Ukraine: Climate Change
“. . . rainfed agriculture might indeed face
more climate-elated risks, but the overall
conditions will probably allow for
acceptable yield levels in most seasons.
However . . . the risk of extremely
unfavourable years . . . is likely to
increase.” (Trnka, M., et al., Is rainfed crop production in central
Europe at risk? Using a regional climate model to produce high resolution
agroclimatic information for decision makers, Journal of Agricultural
Science 148 (2010): 639-656)
ENERGY IS A MESS!
Insecure supplies
Pollution damages health
Habitat disruption
Energy poverty & energy “overabundance”
Injustices
Complicates foreign policies
Pressure on foreign-exchange reserves
UNSUSTAINABLE!
Fixing Energy:
A Philosophical Framework
Sustainable energy: provide for today, leave
enough for tomorrow
Energy must change and is changing.
The Questions
–
–
–
–
–
–
Which fuels?
Who decides?
Based on what criteria?
At what speed?
Who pays?
Eliminate injustices
From Fuels to Energy:
The Big Picture for Ukraine and USA
Total energy on top
Fuels on left
Electricity in center
On right
– Energy services
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transport
Non-energy use
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/
– Discarded energy
Energy Flow Charts
(Sankey diagrams)
Riall Sankey
– Irish engineer
– 1898
– Study of steam engine efficiency
Widely used
– Flows of energy & materials
– Quantitative data without lots of math
– Efficiency and conservation paramount
– Decision-making by large group
DRIVERS OF ENERGY CHANGE
Energy insecurity
– Uneven geographic distribution
– Instability of supply—geopolitical tensions
– Poverty
Climate change
– CO2 major cause: from fossil fuels
– Climate sensitivity to CO2 uncertain
– Need high reduction of fossil fuels
– 80% reduction of CO2  61% fewer quads
80 PERCENT CO2 REDUCTIONS (USA)
FUEL
Quads, 2012
Emissions
after reduction
(106 metric
tons)
0
Quads
remaining
17.4
CO2
Emissions
(106 metric
tons)
1660
Coal
Petroleum
34.7
2270
0
0
Gas
26.0
1370
1060
20.1
Geothermal
0.23
0.4
0.4
0.4
Biomass
4.32
0
0
4.32
Wind
1.36
0
0
1.36
Hydro
2.69
0
0
2.69
Nuclear
8.05
0
0
8.05
Solar
0.24
0
0
0.24
TOTAL
95.1
5300
1060.4
37.2 or 39%
0
SOLUTION:ENERGIEWENDE
Avoid fossil fuels, nuclear power
Efficiency: use less energy
Use renewable energy
New lifestyles: use less energy
CRITERIA FOR CHOICES
Technology
– Functional
– Acceptable (democratic)
– Cost effective
Political economy (security)
Health (climate change; pollution)
Environment (climate change; pollution)
Corruption (no!)
CONCLUSIONS
Sustainable energy systems
–
–
–
–
–
Efficiency
Solar
Wind
Electrification
Energy-Environment-Economics-Equity
Success = changing Sankey flow chart
– Reduce fossil fuels and CO2
– Avoid gas & nuclear
All new investment to renewable energy
Time period: two generations, 50 years
SUCCESS
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/
Time: Think 2 Generations