Study Says Natural Gas Use Likely to Double

[phantom power]

WASHINGTON — Natural gas will provide an increasing share of America’s energy needs over the next several decades, doubling its share of the energy market to 40 percent, from 20 percent, according to a report to be released Friday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The increase, the report concluded, will come largely at the expense of coal and will be driven both by abundant supplies of natural gas — made more available by shale drilling — and by measures to restrict the carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to climate change.

In the long term, however, the future may be dimmer for natural gas if stricter regulations are put in place to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 — a goal set by President Obama. Although lower in carbon than coal, natural gas is still too carbon-intensive to be used under such a target absent some method of carbon capture, the authors of the report concluded.

The report, one of a series on energy resources, is the result of a two-year effort by 14 prominent energy experts, led by Ernest J. Moniz, an M.I.T. professor who is a former under secretary of energy. Previous reports focused on nuclear power and coal. The report was financed in part by the American Clean Skies Foundation, which represents the interests of the natural gas industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/business/energy-environment/25natgas.html

[HillbillyBob]

1. Yea the next serious problem will be clean water from the

fragmenting method used to extract the gas and poisons the water in the aquifer.
We are looking at a mountaintop removal to commence about 25 miles (upwind at least part of the time) uranium mining in Chatham Va.

The blasts from mountain top removal have cracked aquifers in WV now whole communities can now longer use water that was some of the best in the world.
This fracking or fragmenting the aquifer shell opens them to pollution running into them and the fluids used in fracking including diesel fuel (??) in water spoiling water for large areas.

We may switch to lp gas for the tiller and mower and the like, even the car, but we are working toward weaning ourselves from fossil fuels and trying to go total solar..it takes planning, time and money. I have more time to plan than money but we are slowly reeling it in and not suffering for it we save on our repairs, maintenance and power bills (down 3/4 in 3 yrs).

[Champion Jack]

5. +1

[Dogmudgeon]

2. The primary funding source is ... BP

The anti-nukes like to quote MIT Energy Initiative since they don't put much emphasis on nuclear energy. Being a curiosity-driven sort, I like to read everything that is presented as evidence pro and anti, and do a little additional research on my own.

Here is the list of http://mit.edu/mitei/about/members.html">MIT Energy Initiative Members (i.e., funding partners). It explains why MIT/EI thinks gas is a winner and why it doesn't think The Devil's Lightning has much of a chance. The money is primarily coming from the fossil fuel industry. There's a little money from places with nuclear divisions, but nearly all of them are old-line and state-owned enterprises like Siemens and EdF. But there's also a lot of "green" affiliates in the list. It's quite well-rounded in its way.

But I have been having an "interesting" life lately and generally don't get the chance to stick around for protracted periods of flaming before my non-silicon life comes calling, so this went unposted. Make of it what you will.

--d!

[HillbillyBob]

4. I would rather be off fossil fuels altogether

and am trying to work out ways so that we can be less or not dependent at all on fossil fuels of any kind. We live out in the boonies our choices are of fuels are wood, petroleum, or liquid petroleum gas or solar. 'Natural Gas' is not available out here, hell getting a landline phone that worked took 3 yrs!
No Cable tv either yay for dishtv. First tho is to increase efficiency which we have made a huge dent in our power bill total electric house. We have cut our power needs by efficiency by 3/4 and spent 3600 over 3 1/2 yrs but save 2500$ per year for our investment.
We have not bought BP gas in several years since getting gas for car and truck on the same day to move some stuff and there was more water than gas and really messed up my truck.

[joshcryer]

6. That is utterly shameful, thanks for the truth.

Even as we are heading toward an ice free north pole (and insane feedbacks which none are prepared to accept), people on this forum are attempting to dumb down the effects of fossil fuels.

[pscot]

7. If you pay the band

you get to call the tune.

[hunter]

3. We need to stop calling it "natural" gas. It ain't "natural."

How about something like "CRACK GAS"