Natural gas on your radioLast week we posted some public service announcements that Chris McGill did over on aga.org. We had a good time doing them and they turned out really well. They include some great tips on how to make your home more efficient and make the world a greener place. Take a moment to check them out, they’re well worth the listen.
Turns out, America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) has been creating some radio spots of their own which began running in just the last couple of weeks. They focus on some good facts including:
- Natural gas offers our country affordable, abundant, reliable and cleaner energy for generations to come
- America has more untapped natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil
- The Washington Post recently endorsed natural gas as THE natural choice, right now, to lead us to a cleaner energy future.
Take a trip over to ANGA’s site and give them the full listen.
You’ve gotta love that marketing speak – “the cleanest fossil fuel”. It might even be one of the most abundant fossil fuels in North America.
I am just thankful that there are cleaner, far more abundant and far more energy dense fuels right here inside the borders of the USA. Tiny pellets of uranium, with a mass of about 9 grams, release the equivalent energy of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. That much gas costs more than $100 for electric power customers; those tiny uranium dioxide pellets cost about $7.50 in the form of fully manufactured commercial nuclear fuel – even after allowing for storage and waste handling requirements.
Uranium dioxide does not lower the carbon footprint – it eliminates it. That fuel is clean enough to use inside sealed submarines; we have been doing it for more than 50 years.
Hey Rod,
I thought Chris did a good job of answering your question and really hitting on some of the benefits of natural gas. I also wanted to share some thoughts and links from an email conversation I had with someone recently.
AGA’s membership is made up of natural gas utilities. You can read more about who we are on this blog. AGA supports a diverse energy portfolio. Dave has stated this publicly many times. You can read those thoughts on the National Journals Energy Experts blog. That post also appears on this blog. One of the first posts we did on True Blue was about energy interdependence.
Hello Mr. Adams. Just a few thoughts on your comments.
First, it is always amusing to have the Potential Gas Committee report described as “optimistic.” If that is true, then it can only apply to the current report. The reason for that, of course, is that the PGC estimate of undiscovered resources has grown 77 percent since 1990, as the technically recoverable resource has been redefined by technology and energy economics. That is; every report until now would have to be viewed as conservative or pessimistic, if Mr. Adams assessment of the current report is accurate – “optimistic.” My guess is that future PGC assessments may be even more “optimistic” as new technologies continue to impact production of natural gas in the United States.
Second, you do point out the apples to oranges comparison that is made when organizations like the America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) point to the future supply of natural gas in the United States or North America compared to Saudi oil and such. The problem doesn’t exist because U.S. definitions of proved reserves or undiscovered resources are unclear – they are very clear. What is lacking is a consistency around the globe as to what other countries call proved reserves. Fix that problem and a better comparison can be made.
Furthermore, there is nothing deceptive about viewing the potential for natural gas in the United States and North America as remarkable given its relative abundance and great supply diversity. There is nothing deceptive about promoting the development and use of the cleanest fossil fuel in our homes, businesses, industries, vehicles and for power generation. There is nothing deceptive about the burner tip technologies that have made natural gas consumption more efficient, lowering the carbon footprint among users. There is nothing deceptive about the difference between bringing a home grown fuel to market rather than pushing more dollars overseas, providing jobs and secure infrastructure to the American energy economy. Those opportunities are not deceptive – they are common sense and belong in our energy future.
Can you clarify the assertion that the US has more untapped natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil?
I think I understand the math behind the assertion, but I am not sure that the words convey a valid comparison.
The optimistic report published in June of 2009 by the Potential Gas Committee indicated that the US total of “proven, potential, possible and speculative” RESOURCES was about 2,000 TCF.
5800 cubic feet of natural gas is equal to one barrel of oil equivalent (BOE).
With simple arithmetic, you can compute that 2,000 trillion cubic feet of “proven, potential, possible and speculative” natural gas is roughly 344 billion BOE. Wikipedia says that Saudi Arabia’s PROVEN RESERVES of oil are 267 billion barrels.
If you compare the proven reserves of US natural gas to the proven reserves of Saudi oil, you find a factor of ten difference.
Doesn’t that qualify as a bit deceptive?
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
(All of above listed by way of disclosing that I favor a competitive energy source over natural gas.)