Back to top Jump to featured resources
Article filed under Energy, Energy Self-Reliant States

Natural Gas isn’t a Bridge Fuel, it’s a Gateway Drug

| Written by John Farrell | 2 Comments | Updated on Jan 30, 2014 The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://ilsr.org/natural-gas-bridge-fuel-gateway-drug/
Credit: Roadsidepictures

In his State of the Union, President Obama added to the conventional wisdom that supplanting coal with natural gas will act as a bridge toward a climate solution. Unfortunately, gas is more of a gateway drug than a bridge to a clean energy future.

1) It’s still a major greenhouse gas.  Sure, natural gas is cleaner than coal, but that’s setting a pretty low bar.  Even if my shit smells sweeter than most, it’s still shit.

Natural gas powered electricity still pours 1.22 lbs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces. That’s 6 tons of CO2 per year from every household in America if its electricity were completely generated with natural gas.

And that’s the emissions from the stuff that actually gets to the power plant. The EPA has collected industry-reported data suggested that leakage from the drilling, production, and pipeline process runs close to 1.5%.  Other studies show much higher leakage rates.  At a 2.7% leakage rate, gas is no better than coal for the climate.

2) Gas for electricity competes with gas for heating (and gas for transportation).  The recent “polar vortex” events have meant spikes in home heating costs.  As Forbes notes, “The cold affected electricity generation systems, particularly natural gas, in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast such that supply weakened and prices skyrocketed. In New England, natural gas faltered so much that regional grid administrator ISO-New England had to bring up dirtier coal and oil plants to try to make up the difference.”

With gas prices as volatile as history shows (data below from EIA), increasing gas reliance in sectors other than home heating (e.g. electricity, transportation) is just asking for Oil Crisis v2.

henry hub gas prices 1997-2014 EIA

3) In electricity and transportation, we have much cleaner options. If you want a cleaner way to heat your home than natural gas, you’re going to have to pay a lot more.  Solar hot water, geothermal, and other renewable options are not yet cost competitive.

But in the electricity market, renewables are more cost-effective than natural gas.  Wind power is routinely the lowest cost wholesale power, as the following cost comparison from investment bank Lazard (from 2011) illustrates.

Screenshot 2014-01-30 13.57.06

Solar power plants are competitive in a different way. They tend to deliver power right when natural gas power plants operate, at periods of peak demand (which is, in part, why a judge recently told a Minnesota utility to buy solar instead of building new natural gas power plants).  Even back in 2011, California utilities were buying energy from solar on long-term contracts for less than the cost of energy from natural gas power plants.

Furthermore, because they have zero fuel cost, wind and other renewables tend to exert downward pressure on wholesale electricity costs, as shown in the following graphic.

PTCpower_art-1

In transportation, natural gas loses to electric vehicles. Natural gas vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30% over gasoline vehicles, but electric vehicles would lower emissions by 50-75% in most regions of the country, and they get better as grid electricity gets cleaner.   And electric vehicles cost less per mile driven (5¢ compared to 6.7¢ for natural gas). Additionally, why build an entirely new refueling network for natural gas vehicles when every gas station and home in America already has a power outlet?

4) Building natural gas infrastructure chains us to a carbon-based energy future for 50 years. Electric utilities build power plants with 50 year life expectancies, same for gas companies and pipelines.  Every dollar invested in dirty gas infrastructure is a dollar not spent building solar and wind farms, not spent researching battery technologies, and not spent helping communities capture the most of their local energy dollar. And it’s committing us to burn more natural gas for decades, during a time which greenhouse gas emissions must fall precipitously to avoid the major consequences of climate chaos.

A Relapse

Expanding natural gas use in electricity and transportation is risky, it’s dirty, and – most of all – it’s unnecessary.

The electricity sector is already undergoing a rapid transformation to a carbon-free system, driven by renewable energy standards and rapidly falling costs for wind and solar power. Converting coal plants to natural gas makes short-term sense, but building new fossil fuel infrastructure when we have free-fuel renewables is inane.

The transportation sector has already identified a low-carbon alternative to gasoline vehicles with an in-place fuel network. Electric vehicles will only get more efficient and cleaner as they grow in numbers and as the grid gets greener.

Americans are finally on a course to wean ourselves from an unhealthy addiction to fossil fuels in two major sectors of our economy.  Natural gas isn’t a bridge, it’s a relapse.  And it’s time we admit it.

Photo credit: Roadsidepictures

Tags: / / / / / /

About John Farrell

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. More

Contact John   |   View all articles by John Farrell

  • leesamelson

    Thank you very much John, spread your message far and wide. I was most frustrated to see the President put natural gas on a pedestal on national TV when the last thing the gas companies need is another PR advertising boost. At the very least I’d like to hear talk about methane energy from anaerobic digesters or some type of bio-gas alternative to fracking. As far as those who have fallen under the spell of “hydrolic fracturing is clean and safe” the drilling companies have even given gag orders to 7 and 10 year old Holowich children to never talk about the health defects their family had suffered through. Otherwise their propaganda would be punctured.

    If we are going to have to phase out nuclear and dirty coal plants because huge base load power is incompatible with a shift toward 100% renewables. So its a contest between natural gas and renewables for what fills the void big base load. Part of the problem is that new gas lines seem to get fast tracked through the approval process while new electrical transmission lines that hook up utility scale solar and wind power projects are stuck in regulatory limbo for years. Is there a way to make renewable energy more localized so that the cost and time delay of new transmission lines are not an impediment to renewables in winning the future?

  • Peter Bardaglio

    It’s not just the CO2 emissions that are an issue. Even more dangerous for climate change are the massive methane emissions that take place during the natural gas fracking and distribution process. See, most recently, http://climatechange.cornell.edu/is-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-conversation-with-bob-howarth/.