Debate Club

Is Fracking a Good Idea? >

Natural Gas Is an Energy Solution That Works Today

Wind and solar power are intermittent and require coal and natural gas backup

November 29, 2011

About Jon Olson:

Dr. Jon Olson is an associate professor in the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin. He specializes in hydraulic fracturing research and teaches geomechanics to petroleum engineering students. He also participates in public outreach focused on secondary school science teachers with regard to energy supply and utilization, the place of fossil fuels in the energy mix for the U.S.A., and the use of geologic carbon storage to mitigate greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.

Yes. In the national energy debate, natural gas is seen as a competitor with wind and solar to reduce our dependence on coal-fired electricity generation. We should utilize all our energy resources responsibly, but some are clearly more important than others. We currently get 49 percent of our power from burning coal, 21 percent from nuclear, 18 percent from natural gas (www.eia.gov, 2010 statistics). Wind accounts for only 2 percent and solar a mere 0.03 percent. If you look closer at wind, which has great promise and has been expanding rapidly in recent years, Texas has the largest installed wind capacity in the United States, on the order of 10,000 megawatts (MW). However, because the wind doesn't blow all the time, Texas generates only 2,000 MW from wind (or a 2 MW wind turbine produces only about 0.4 MW usable power). The power equivalence represented by the current gas production from only one shale gas play, the Barnett Shale (1850 Bcf/year), is about 25,000 MW (assuming 40 percent efficiency for a gas power plant), equivalent to over 60,000 wind turbines or 25 coal-fired power plants or the average power usage of 25 million homes. Natural gas can be produced on demand and natural gas power plants can be spooled up and down on demand as well. Both wind and solar are intermittent and thus still require the construction of coal or natural gas backup for base load and peak power capacity.

[GOP Victory Could Boost Natural Gas Drilling]

What about the environment? According to the EPA, natural gas electricity generation produces half the carbon dioxide of coal, less than a third of the nitrogen oxides and 1 percent of the sulfur oxides. Best practices in natural gas drilling provide multiple lines of protection for groundwater resources. There have been problems, but they have been rare and most importantly, they are avoidable. Just like any other industrial activity, there are risks, but good engineering, in combination with sensible and effective regulation, reduces those risks to maximize societal benefit. Water usage, often decried as irresponsible, is small compared to other domestic water consumers. Marcellus Shale gas development accounts for one one-hundredth of the domestic water usage rate in Pennsylvania, and one fifth of what is used in the state solely to care for livestock.

We are a big country with big energy needs. Natural gas is an energy solution that works today, at utility scale with current technology. Shale gas is the most promising natural resource find in decades. We should utilize it.

Tags:
gas prices,
energy policy and climate change,
natural gas,
energy,
EPA
Other Arguments
#1
#2

No — The gas industry promises to "do it right," but there is no such thing

JOHN DETWILER, Private Citizen with Marcellus Shale Protest

#3
#4
#5

No — Use foresight to get smart regulations in place, then we can talk about fracking

TRENT DOUGHERTY, Director of Legal Affairs for the Ohio Environmental Council

#7

Yes — The economic benefits of the shale gas boom outweigh unproven risks

DANIEL SIMMONS, Director of State Affairs at the Institute for Energy Research

#8

Yes — Worried about chemicals used in fracking fluid? Let's break it down for you

CHRIS FAULKNER, Founder, President, and CEO of Breitling Oil and Gas

#9

Yes — Advances mean even more energy without a significant threat to groundwater

LEE FULLER, Vice President of Government Relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America

#10

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It's my hope that Dr. Olson sees that clean, homegrown American wind energy actually does work today!

First, please note that Dr. Olsen’s wind capacity numbers are actually low by 50%. The average capacity factor for wind in Texas is over 30%, which means the fleet of 10,000 MW produced over 3,000 MW on average, not the 2,000 he claims, and a 2 MW turbine produces .6 MW on average.

To further address Dr. Olsen’s concerns about wind energy availability, consider this: To reach the Department of Energy’s goal of supplying 20% of electricity in the U.S. with wind, roughly 300,000 MW of wind power would be needed. That is only a small fraction of the total U.S. wind energy potential of roughly 15 million MW. If there were enough transmission lines in place to carry the electricity, 300,000 MW of wind could be installed in Texas alone. Or Kansas. Or any of several other states. Abundance of wind is the least of our problems.

Besides, the varying output from wind farms is relatively easy for system operators to integrate, because changes in wind energy output occur slowly and are predictable. Grid operators can accommodate wind and solar with slower types of reserve generation that usually cost 97% less than the fast reserves used to accommodate fossil and nuclear plant outages.

In fact, it would be far more appropriate to talk about the need to back up large fossil and nuclear power plants, as those plants are the ones that experience large, immediate, and unexpected outages, requiring grid operators to keep 1000+ MW of fast-acting, expensive, and inefficient standby generation ready 24/7/365 in case one of those plants goes down.

Regarding the environment, it’s not even close; Wind power won’t produce any pollution--today, tomorrow, or over the next 10 years or 20 years.

Wind energy is abundant, affordable, and readily available. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to increase U.S. wind energy to 20% of our electricity needs and get our economy back on track

Look at the facts – Wind works today. It will work even better tomorrow.

Kevin H. of DC 1:40PM December 01, 2011

The reason to put up numbers is to show that there is no quick and easy transition from fossil fuels to the alternatives you mention - biomass, wind and solar. Fossil fuels are incredibly well suited for our curernt energy needs (electiricity generation and transportation). Some experts estimate 30 years for the transition away from the fossil-fuel dominant economy (see the movie Haynesville for an interesting treatment of energy supply, energy demand, and impact on local communities without the sensationallization and exaggeration of a movie like Gasland). And I would argue that if you look at world population growth, and particularly the increase in energy intensive activity in India and China, that the world will need to exploit all energy sources, fossil-based and alternative, to avoid an economic and living standard crash.

Wind and solar are improving rapidly (and geothermal has great potential), but just like shale gas won't make our country independent energy imports, it is implausible to think we will be fossil-fuel independent any time soon. And the idea that alternatives are completely benign with regard to the environment is as naive as saying natural gas drilling has no risks. Just consider the issues with land usage for wind and solar and corn-based ethanol, burning food for fuel, the prospect of damming up more wild rivers to expand hydroelectic, and rare earth element shortages for electronics. So clearly there is plenty of work to go around for everyone, including us fossil-based guys (waterless fracing, geologic storage of CO2, enhanced oil recovery, ...).

Jon Olson of TX 2:30AM December 01, 2011

This is how I would characterize the challenge: how can we make a rapid transition from fossil fuel dependency to fossil fuel independence, without an economic meltdown due to energy shortages?

Some numeric follow-on questions: How long would it take to ramp up our wind and solar capacity, if we poured the same money into that as we are planning to pour into gas drilling? How rapidly can we decrease our energy needs with efficiency improvements? What is the minimum amount of natural gas (or other conventional fuel) we would need over time to avoid major shortfalls, if we focused our resources on making the transition away from fossil fuels as rapidly as possible? How much energy storage capacity and "switch on and off at will" power would we actually need, if we were *only* using it to buffer the fluctuations in renewable sources? What non-fossil energy sources (e.g. biomass, hydro, landfill methane) might be able to meet that need, and how does the theoretical (not current) capacity of those sources compare to the amount needed?

I'd like to see you devote your capacity for number-crunching to devise a realistic transition strategy to get us off fossil fuels, instead of handwaving the alternatives and refusing to take them seriously. We *have* to go that route eventually, and we can minimize the devastation of our economy and our planet if we embrace that future now.

Marty Hiller of NY 11:24AM November 30, 2011

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.


Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.


You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Obama's Remarkable Silence on Latin American Press Abuses

President Obama's silence on press freedom in Latin America is troubling.

Why the Media Is Giving Romney a Pass on Trump's Birtherism

Why the media hasn't pressed Mitt Romney about Donald Trump's birther fantasies.

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Advertisement