Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

[planet4ever]

Personally, until we replace every coal-fired electricity plant with a NG-fired one, I think CNG vehicles should be second priority

While natural gas is cleaner than coal in regards to pollutants like mercury, it is not any better for climate change

That's a bit of an overstatement, Stoaty. Natural gas does burn more efficiently, so produces slightly less carbon for a given amount of usable energy. But it's not nearly enough. I personally hope that CNG cars will never become really practical, and that over time we can replace all NG power plants with carbon neutral ones. Yes, that will need to include a major investment in nuclear plants. But also, yes, NG power is a lot cleaner than coal power, so I agree with GRA that our first priority should be to replace all coal-fired power plants.

Ray

 

[DaveEV]

I think there is little doubt that the low price of CNG is because it isn't in much demand, especially as a replacement for gasoline. If there was enough conversion, the industry would end up just keeping the price low enough to keep market share, but much higher then now.

My worry about natural gas is that the price of it has not been much more stable than oil.

There's been 3 large spikes in natural gas prices in the last decade alone. Just look at this chart:

Now, I believe that most of the recent decline in natural gas prices is actually due to frackers looking for shale oil - not gas. So they go out fracking for oil, but also happen to get a good amount of gas as well that they might as well sell instead of flare off. Since oil supply is very tight right now (look at the price) and oil is extremely fungible compared to gas, we end up with low natural gas prices. Natural gas is very expensive to transport compared to oil.

So I don't think it's a good idea to trade any more oil dependency for nat-gas dependency than we have to. And for the gas that we do burn - let's use it in 60% efficient combined cycle turbines for electricity.

 

[Stoaty]

While natural gas is cleaner than coal in regards to pollutants like mercury, it is not any better for climate change

That's a bit of an overstatement, Stoaty. Natural gas does burn more efficiently, so produces slightly less carbon for a given amount of usable energy. But it's not nearly enough. I personally hope that CNG cars will never become really practical, and that over time we can replace all NG power plants with carbon neutral ones. Yes, that will need to include a major investment in nuclear plants. But also, yes, NG power is a lot cleaner than coal power, so I agree with GRA that our first priority should be to replace all coal-fired power plants.

Did you actually read the link I posted?

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/01/428764/ddrop-in-warming-requires-rapid-massive-deployment039-of-zero-carbon-power-not-gas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See also:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/09/315845/natural-gas-switching-from-coal-to-gas-increases-warming-for-decades/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/07/238578/iea-golden-age-of-natural-gas-scenario-warming-climate-change/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that until recently Joe Romm (blogs on Climateprogress, now a part of Thinkprogress) considered natural gas a "bridge fuel", but has changed his position due to recent scientific studies that have shown that it is a "bridge to nowhere". I should add that his credentials are impeccable:

"Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT."

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

the debate over climate change and its causes will rage on even when blogging from their new underwater homes on the former Florida Coast, but its hard to dispute that weather is taking a more prominent role in the news these days.

last year we set a record for most "Billion Dollar Weather" Events. now, is it climate change caused by us or just the natural progression of things?

who knows? but have to agree with Ray in that, swapping one fossil fuel to another, no matter how abundant is not even sidestepping anymore. we no longer have that luxury. iow, Carbon Neutral is no longer good enough. the sad thing is that it will take another 10 years before most of us realize it.

i can only hope that any thought of using Natural Gas to power our vehicles gets quashed ASAP.

 

[siai]

Sorry to have to step in here and a little off topic. I agree that natural gas is not a "perfect" fuel but it's use (in my opinion) is way better then gasoline or diesel fuel. It is not worth one life of any American to die in a foreign land to protect our supply of traditional fuels for our vehicles if a domestic alternative supply is available. Maybe in the future a better alternative will become available but as of today, natural gas is the only viable choice. A "bridge" fuel is just that---a bridge to something else. However, if we keep waiting for that perfect fuel, we will never ween ourselves off our traditional fuels until it is way too late. Ten years ago in California we abandoned the "electric highway" in favor of the "Hydrogen highway" and look where that got us--nothing but promises that in 10 years Hydrogen vehicles would be everywhere. The only benefit of that disaster was I was able to aquire a Rav4-EV that was no longer wanted by it's California owner which I then drove for 8 years. Before the Rav4, I had driven electrics for years with my LEAF is latest (and best) running electric that I have owned. All of the other vehicles that I drive on a regular basis run on compressed natural gas. Those two fuel types (electric and natural gas) could meet 100% of our transportation fuel requirements---if anyone really cared until a crisis arrives.

However, there will always be those people out there that boast that they have to have a giant V-8 SUV for whatever reason they justify to themselves. Again, in my opinion, these people are being short sighted when you look at where we are headed. Many years ago I was in that crowd when I owned a four wheel drive Ford Excursion Diesel which is about as far from a EV as you can get. I have owned everything from a Ferrari to a Geo Metro. Each vehicle had it's time and place. Times change and people change. Fuel prices and environmental issues will help sort this thing out. This is still a Country where we have a choice on how we use energy and what we drive. And now because of the marketplace we have a choice of gasoline, diesel, natural gas or electricity for a fuel source for our vehicles. People tend to complain about high gasoline prices and expect someone else to do something about it without looking at what their lifestyle choices have done to affect the issue. Educating your friends a co-workers about the advantages of the fuel type used by the vehicle you drive is the best way to shift opinion and change preceptions about alternative fuels.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Sorry to have to step in here and a little off topic. I agree that natural gas is not a "perfect" fuel but it's use (in my opinion) is way better then gasoline or diesel fuel. It is not worth one life of any American to die in a foreign land to protect our supply of traditional fuels for our vehicles if a domestic alternative supply is available. the best way to shift opinion and change preceptions about alternative fuels.

tell that to the families of Coal Miners, oil rig workers or the parents of an asthmatic child.

there is no reason why electricity cannot work other than big oil not wanting us to do it or politicians unwilling to change the laws or utilities unwilling to support the effort.

no reason whatsoever. it is definitely not a technical reason. we could easily convert 95% of all personal transportation needs to electric in the next 3-5 years if we had the support, the infrastructure, the willingness to simply do it.

it will not be free, but neither is a conversion to natural gas. so you think we should pay billions for natural gas for a few decades, then several billion more for something else?

 

[HighDesertDriver]

Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) is methane (CH4) cooled to a liquid state and maintained at -260F. In a liquid state, it can be transported at low pressures (~3-4psi) in insulated containers. Since no container is a perfect insulator, the material which vaporizes from the liquid must vented to keep pressures within the capability of the tank. In an LNG plant, they can be recooled, liquefied, and returned to the tank. On a transport ship, the off-gasses are typically used to power the ship.

Related $5/gal story: We stopped earlier in the week at Valencia Nissan for some charge while shopping at the nearby mall. When leaving a couple hours later, I thanked the staff for the opportunity charging and asked if they had any orphans I could post to this site. The on-duty manager chuckled and said that they had a couple the previous week, but that with the recent upswing in gas prices, they had quickly disappeared. I didn't query the price, but the last orphans I had seen there were asking a $2500 premium.

 

[Nekota]

At what pressure (at 70ºF) does CNG liquify?

....snipped....

The critical temperature for methane is -82 C(-115F) and 46 atm(676psi) and recall critical temperature is where gas - liquid phase diagram terminates. Or where the difference between gas and liquid cannot be distinguished. See the following link for the long description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_point_(thermodynamics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

For gas prices in San Jose Bay area have stopped rising and stablized at $4.33 as an average for the past few days. They were $0.60 lower just a month ago. http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Personally, until we replace every coal-fired electricity plant with a NG-fired one, I think CNG vehicles should be second priority, although companies with large fleets (lLike UPS) and defined-routes may find it cost effective to switch. And any large-scale switch to CNG vehicles assumes that prices will remain as low as they currently are. I think this is unlikely once demand starts to catch up to supply. And fracking will inevitably face tightened regs, which will also boost the price (I've seen estimates of an additional $150k/drilled well).

While natural gas is cleaner than coal in regards to pollutants like mercury, it is not any better for climate change:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/01/428764/ddrop-in-warming-requires-rapid-massive-deployment039-of-zero-carbon-power-not-gas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link. I just skimmed it, but I will read it in depth when I've got the chance. I have a lot of respect for Romm, going back to his pre-DoE days at RMI. I recently took part in a focus group (judging by the content, its purpose was to find out what arguments for and against nuclear power in California worked best, and especially whether we would support or oppose a proposed ballot initiative that would, in effect, shut down Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and prohibit building any more nukes in California).

Here's where I come down on nuclear. I recognize that it's the only base-load electric power source in this country that's readily expandable, high-power density and low-carbon, and it's been reasonably safe (with obvious exceptions) - coal extraction, transport and combustion has killed or injured far more people. While I have concerns about major natural disasters or terrorism, my primary concern with nuclear is long-term waste storage.

Much as I'd love to go over to all-renewables, I recognize that isn't possible for base-load given the intermittent nature of wind and solar barring a major technological/cost breakthrough in electricity storage: pumped storage, while the cheapest, is land-intensive, and storing heat in molten salts at solar thermal plants is much too costly. Nuclear has another drawback, this time-related; permitting and construction tend to be very drawn-out given that no one wants to live near one, and that boosts cost as well.

So, I think NG, particularly CCGT, is the only way we can have any significant effect soon on GHGs (whatever you assess the risk of that as), while also bringing us a bit closer to energy autarky and improving environmental quality (mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, SO2 etc. in air and ash ponds), and hopefully buying us some time to come up with something better. It's certainly not a perfect solution, but at the moment it's the only one I see that has any chance of having significant effect in my lifetime.

 

[planet4ever]

Natural gas does burn more efficiently, so produces slightly less carbon for a given amount of usable energy. But it's not nearly enough. I personally hope that CNG cars will never become really practical, and that over time we can replace all NG power plants with carbon neutral ones. Yes, that will need to include a major investment in nuclear plants. But also, yes, NG power is a lot cleaner than coal power, so I agree with GRA that our first priority should be to replace all coal-fired power plants.

Did you actually read the link I posted?

Yes, I did, and I'm not sure what you are objecting to in my statement. The graph in that article shows natural gas at or below 0.25°c temperature increase over the next 100 years compared with coal at 0.30°c. All the carbon-neutral sources he shows are much lower. I said we should not go down the CNG car route, and we should eventually get rid of all NG power plants. I guess I didn't say this specifically, but what I meant was that we should build out nuclear, wind, and solar as rapidly as possible and use that additional capacity to decommission coal plants. Only when the coal is mostly gone should we start decommissioning NG plants. In the mean time, we should not be building new NG plants.

Ray

 

[coolfilmaker]

I think one thing that is easy to miss about natural gas is that it is very easy to counteract the positive effects of less CO2 from combustion by having natural gas producers with lousy extraction processes like we do now in the US. When they let extra methane escape it acts as a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 so it would not be hard to have a natural gas based transportation system that is just as worse as a coal powered electric one.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-bubble-the-scam-behind-the-gas-boom-20120301

 

[GRA]

There was an article in the WSJ today about Chrysler and GM putting CNG or bi-fuel pickups into production. Having trouble with the link, but googling 'wall street journal natural gas pickup trucks' should get you some links. [Later] It's working now:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257770238882852.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Remember folks - the president has no control over this.

So the next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices, understand it's complete BS. If Americans want lower gas prices, cut back - sell those SUVs! - ride a bike when you can. If every one of us bought 10% less gasoline, prices would fall fast. That's what the candidates should be saying. We need a strong leader who is honest, smart, and courageous - and willing - to explain dubious associations - that's what we need.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o[/youtube]

 

[Smidge204]

Remember folks - the president has no control over this.

Now what needs to be done is take that video and put it next to similar statements by the same Fox news shills complaining about how Obama is hiking gas prices. Unfortunately your typical Fox News audience member doesn't have the ability to reconcile that level of contradiction.
=Smidge=

 

[EdmondLeaf]

Remember folks - the president has no control over this.

Gingrich said yesterday in Atlanta, tweet, email your friends "Gingrich = $250.00 gas" so I am doing so

 

[edatoakrun]

Back OT:

"...As to the question of whether U.S. prices will reach $5 a gallon, as some analysts have predicted, the Energy Department says maybe: Based on current prices of gasoline futures contracts, there’s a 2% chance that the average U.S. gasoline price will hit $5 a gallon for all of June. The agency put the probability of getting $4 gas in June at 39%..."

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-gas-prices-forecast-20120306,0,1454531.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A 2% chance?

If I could get 50-to-one odds, I'd take that bet.

I bought gas twice in the last week, for the first time in 4 months.

5 gallons of 87 octane for my ranch truck, at $4.17 on Thursday.

2 gallons of 89 Octane, for my chainsaw, at $4.32 yesterday-regular was up to 4.19.

If there was ONE DC charger on I-5 between my home in Shasta County and the Bay area, that could be my last gasoline purchase, until the Fall.

 

[AndyH]

Remember folks - the president has no control over this.

Now what needs to be done is take that video and put it next to similar statements by the same Fox news shills complaining about how Obama is hiking gas prices. Unfortunately your typical Fox News audience member doesn't have the ability to reconcile that level of contradiction.
=Smidge=

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/03/06/fox-news-in-2008-no-president-can-control-oil-prices/

 

[smkettner]

Nixon put a price cap on gas. Do people want real shortages again?

 

[Yodrak]

Just to be sure that I understand correctly, is the "$250.00" his typo or yours?

Remember folks - the president has no control over this.

Gingrich said yesterday in Atlanta, tweet, email your friends "Gingrich = $250.00 gas" so I am doing so

 

[EdmondLeaf]

Just to be sure that I understand correctly, is the "$250.00" his typo or yours?

Remember folks - the president has no control over this.

Gingrich said yesterday in Atlanta, tweet, email your friends "Gingrich = $250.00 gas" so I am doing so