Comments Kantor post "Oil & Gas: the stage of substitution" Kantor has written an interesting blog entry analyzing the evolution of gas and oil reserves in the next 30 years and positioning for of gas as a substitute for oil in transport. I recommend reading
.
There are many parts of the entry with which I am essentially in agreement and I will not dwell on them. But other parts do deserve some comment, which left me a bit long I've become a post. Since I have read yours, right? ... Right? Then come, I give it 5 minutes ...
... ... .. Let
block by block the post of Kantor.
"
1 .- Global Energy transition: the next thirty years "It says
Kantor:
" On the other hand, there is (now) a simple and cheap substitute for oil in internal combustion engines, it is natural gas. As I write these lines on natural gas, a fuel just a little less versatile than oil is burned (criminally) in electricity production plants, while some governments (the ones that have supported the thymus of renewables, and therefore support terrible waste of gas) bet again for the most expensive solution and propaganda, throwing millions into the electric car, when the natural gas car (and its hybrid version) can slow the problem of liquid fuels for at least three decades: the need to have a large fleet of third-generation nuclear reactors (and the first commercial breeders operating) and electric batteries for carbon nanotubes, or alternatively, a viable technology of hydrogen as an energy . "
The truth is that the proliferation of natural gas combined cycle (CC), in Spain and other countries from the 90's, were the result of incentives that then pushed the agents to the power generation technology: the technological and commercial development gas turbines (with a consequent reduction in costs) converged with the emergence of supply contracts and natural gas infrastructure that at that time already considered "simple and cheap." The high performance of these plants, their (relatively) low environmental impact and speed of construction (and low investment costs) were the promise of future power generation to which we all signed up, mostly with very few coal plants contaminants and (if not criminal, yes stupid) nuclear moratorium. Subsequently, the gas rose in price, and also began to proliferate renewables (mostly wind) ... but Kantor considers that any support for renewables is an implicit support for the gas flaring in DC for his position as backup power to the flash of those, the fact is that all companies bet on gas as a "power base" ... while that renewable gas lead in fact to be mere backup power, with fewer and fewer hours of operation but with the imperative of having such power (already analyzed in this
and
this post.) That is, this supposed "waste gas" causing renewables, there is little and less and less ... in fact the real problem is the "waste economic "implications of this circumstance for those who invested in combined cycle.
So
the history of the CC was that gas was a matter of incentives , and were not governments but private companies which made their choice, which they thought best at that time without predict the future impact of renewables and how they were going to engage dramatically the profitability of the cycles.
As the penultimate comment about the electric car, of course is "expensive and propaganda" repeat the mistake that was made in the PV, which is to subsidize the installation (in the case of car purchase) and inefficient technologies are at the beginning of your learning curve, instead of encouraging R & D (in the case of the car on the cells) that allows them commercially viable, say, a decade.
Indeed, on paper (that is, serving only to reservations and available technology) I agree with Kantor that the natural gas car could delay a few decades the problem of liquid fuels ... the question is
again, if given incentives, which are also different in different countries, for such replacement
occur in practice : in countries that already have a large fleet of vehicles powered by CNG (compressed natural gas), it has not managed to replace only a portion of the park powered by liquid fuel (usually urban taxis), despite its lower cost of ownership. Understand the fundamental reason is the low autonomy.
In other countries, who are not suppliers of CNG infrastructure (although this does not seem very problematic) and, above all, they would have to replace its current fleet with CNG or other adapted car engines , I find it hard to think of what kind of incentives may be individual users to undertake the replacement costs, cargo space dramatically losing even more dramatically and autonomy of use ... as diesel and gasoline remain available at acceptable cost. A recent MIT report commented on this post
, gives a rather insignificant role in the use of gas for transportation in the coming years, although it recommends that governments facilitate its use.
Another important point is
the geopolitics of supply GN, very different from oil, which causes virtually the only significant use of CNG as vehicular fuel occur in countries deposits of gas or easy access to them.
Apart from the cost of replacement / adjustment of the engines, and the logistical and geopolitical
not forget that the combustion of natural gas, although cleaner than clear liquids, only reduces CO2 emissions 26% against these , so can hardly be regarded as a solution in any scenario that should prove necessary radical emission reductions. Even without reasonable to consider such a scenario is not implausible that the successive improvements in the existing diesel and gasoline engines to achieve similar emission reductions ...
Anyway, I will not dwell too much on this particular point because Kantor has promised to talk about it in your next post, as is well-informed guy, we will be cautious and wait patiently for your letter and interest.
Just say to end this block, your last comment on the nanotube electric batteries and hydrogen technology, also seems to bet too much for a "deux ex machina technology" ... To show this, mind you in the following graph where
show the energy density of various fuels : you can see where electric batteries, even considering the theoretical limits known so far and nanotube batteries ... and where is the hydrogen, compared to liquid fuels "to use." Do not forget that the relevant parameter to compare the energy density is one in which to use the fuel, ie, "l" on all liquids and gases and "kg" in the case of batteries or fuel solid. And do not forget, either, that
energy density is not alone, but combined with ease (economic) use, transport and storage at room temperature, which makes the liquid elements hard to peel when be replaced, possibly daunting task for batteries and for hydrogen
.
By the way, take a look at the position of Compressed Natural Gas, and understand why the autonomy of such vehicles is so penalized compared to diesel and gasoline, and even compared to LPG ...
"
3.-A model (with" implicit theorizing ") of gas substitution oil and natural "
Kantor says:
" is expected that these unconventional reservoirs can supply half the demand for natural gas . "
True, but
the exploitation of unconventional gas fields (and even more oil) implies a high consumption of water and energy and with high CO2 emissions and contamination of aquifers . Its future evolution is highly dependent on environmental constraints that are imposed (which, again, differ by country), but in all cases were classified by MIT as "manageable, but challenging. "
In any case, the implicit theoretical model Kantor focuses on showing that there are reserves combined (gas and oil) sufficient for the medium term, and that this should not be cause for immediate concern ... when the real problem
, in my opinion, is what the model leaves out:
not so much the availability of reservations, but the security (or security) of supply what should concern us, and there are strong doubts about it. That is, a problem of "time to market": the question is not so much the amount that remains to be discovered, but whether the industry will be able to develop infrastructure necessary for the speed necessary to supply the expected demand growth.
The key is the ratio P / R Kantor model. While this ratio has not changed much in recent years seems to be consensus that should rise sharply in coming,
as demand continues to grow and new discoveries do not replace the extracted oil (see graph below, showing the history of great discoveries and reserves have been added, compared to production):
Beyond a P / R increased, if achieved, can reducing to a few years the availability of reserves calculated by Kantor, there are serious doubts that de facto
this fact can be achieved, ie, to increase production at the required rate. The reasons are varied (
taken from Mariano Marzo.-April 2010):
- Exploration and production is increasingly expensive
- World production of conventional oil is declining
- Many countries have passed the zenith
production - conventional production outside OPEC has passed the zenith
- We are increasingly dependent on exports of OPEC
- And, above all, the necessary investments could not materialize in time, due to:
- Policy pumping rhythm control in producing countries
- Less investment opportunities for international companies and petronacionalismo
- Political constraints, war and terrorism, lack of
- A qualified personal
- EROI (Energy Return of Energy Investment ) increasingly unfavorable.
........
"
4.-Conclusion: Pessimism about the electrification of transport, oil and uncertainty about the adequacy oil and gas "
As for the replacement of oil by gas in the power of MCI (internal combustion engine), wait for the next post of Kantor. In the meantime, I reiterate my doubts that they give the right incentives in most countries so that such a transition is undertaken and major changes in geopolitics and logistics would require GN. I do see its potential contribution in some niches: transportation fleets (limited by lack of autonomy) and urban transport (taxis, buses, trains ...)
Regarding electricity production, differ that electricity production is a solved problem. On the one hand, is a "problem" that differs greatly from country to country. Furthermore, if definitely established a tax on Mt CO 2
issued to incorporate more or less adequately the externalities of this type of fuel, the higher the probability that the gas replacing coal in electricity generation probability to replace the motor oil.
And finally, nuclear energy has its own problems remain unresolved, as we discussed (and comment) on other occasions.
As for the increased weight of rail transport of goods, totally agree, but how MCI replaced in practice? There is an upper bound in each country over which will be essential road transport.
Also in accordance with electrification, although it requires a drastic reduction of losses in the network that still exist.
In any case, to be finalized, the scenario posed
Kantor feasible. However, there are other possible scenarios
, especially if we take climate change seriously and believe that renewables are here to stay. An outline of how it could be this scenario:
More
nuclear (assuming they are created electricity market models that encourage companies to invest in nuclear.) More renewables, but combined with electrical energy storage to compensate for their intermittency (pumping stations and electric cars) and smart grid to manage ... so that the DC capacity to support gas is minimal and can be devoted to replace coal plants. And for transportation, assuming that the pure electric car and possibly take even limited to urban fleets, development of hybrids and yes, maybe CNG public transport and freight.
remains to be seen in any model, will happen in countries with strong projected growth and abundant coal reserves, like China, if we fail to develop technologies for CO2 capture and storage of viable ...
