Pending Divorce: Can Natural Gas and Renewables Survive as a Couple?
Divorce Pending: Can Natural Gas and Renewables Survive as a Couple?
by Keith Mauck
The natural gas lobby has pinned much of its future hopes on the ability to serve as the "faithful partner" to renewable energy, primarily wind and solar. T. Boone combined natural gas with wind - before dropping the wind. A visit to the Natural Gas Aliance's website, and you find that they have staked their postions on the ability to wed natural gas and renewables. The latest being the hiring of Peter Robertson, the former Chief of Staff to EPA Administrator Carol Browner. Currently, Ms. Browner is serving as the Director for the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. I assume his role will be to cozy up to the White House and carve out a limited niche for natural gas; though you know what they say about those who assume.
Well, Amy Myers Jaffe gave this question some national legs yesterday in the WSJ writing, "The shale boom also is likely to upend the economics of renewable energy. It may be a lot harder to persuade people to adopt green power that needs heavy subsidies when there's a cheap, plentiful fuel out there that's a lot cleaner than coal, even if gas isn't as politically popular as wind or solar."
My question, how long will the "greenies" (as T. Boone Pickens affectionately reffers to them) tolerate a hydrocarbon intruding on their turf. We see a few ancillary battles, primarily in the Marcellus and now with the Transocean disaster that will probably serve as a anti-hydrocarbon-policy conduit for a Whitehouse that had already stepped into offshore drilling with trepidation. After all, greenies unabashedly point to the need to make energy more expensive in order to move us to renewables more quickly. An induced renewable energy birth of sorts. At best, many of the current policy makers, who hold power, see natural gas as a conduit to get us to more renewables, which means less natural gas, within the next few decades. How many of you are willing to concede this?
When I consider natural gas, I see a long term solution that will be going strong for my children and beyond. How about you?
As for how I think we should frame our side of the debate? As I posted on facebook,
"I think natural gas wins an aspect of the energy argument hands down w/o "buying" their way into energy policy - (ie traditional uses like heating/cooking, manufacturing, new uses like transportation). The last 100 years have been based on oil-let's base the next 100 years+ on NG. I think the way to do this is to win the debate of ideas. American people understand common sense-usually. lol. If this is about who can buy their way into it, energy policy will simply change from administration to administration; like financial regulation.
If you're jaded like me, you probably laughed at thought of the "debate of ideas." However, if our current crop of elected officials don't buy into this, it's up to us to elect those, republican or democrat, who do. We need officials who look to reason and the best argument. After all, this is what's best for our nation. That is truly how we enhance our future standing and set our kids up for success.
by Keith Mauck
The natural gas lobby has pinned much of its future hopes on the ability to serve as the "faithful partner" to renewable energy, primarily wind and solar. T. Boone combined natural gas with wind - before dropping the wind. A visit to the Natural Gas Aliance's website, and you find that they have staked their postions on the ability to wed natural gas and renewables. The latest being the hiring of Peter Robertson, the former Chief of Staff to EPA Administrator Carol Browner. Currently, Ms. Browner is serving as the Director for the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. I assume his role will be to cozy up to the White House and carve out a limited niche for natural gas; though you know what they say about those who assume.
Well, Amy Myers Jaffe gave this question some national legs yesterday in the WSJ writing, "The shale boom also is likely to upend the economics of renewable energy. It may be a lot harder to persuade people to adopt green power that needs heavy subsidies when there's a cheap, plentiful fuel out there that's a lot cleaner than coal, even if gas isn't as politically popular as wind or solar."
My question, how long will the "greenies" (as T. Boone Pickens affectionately reffers to them) tolerate a hydrocarbon intruding on their turf. We see a few ancillary battles, primarily in the Marcellus and now with the Transocean disaster that will probably serve as a anti-hydrocarbon-policy conduit for a Whitehouse that had already stepped into offshore drilling with trepidation. After all, greenies unabashedly point to the need to make energy more expensive in order to move us to renewables more quickly. An induced renewable energy birth of sorts. At best, many of the current policy makers, who hold power, see natural gas as a conduit to get us to more renewables, which means less natural gas, within the next few decades. How many of you are willing to concede this?
When I consider natural gas, I see a long term solution that will be going strong for my children and beyond. How about you?
As for how I think we should frame our side of the debate? As I posted on facebook,
"I think natural gas wins an aspect of the energy argument hands down w/o "buying" their way into energy policy - (ie traditional uses like heating/cooking, manufacturing, new uses like transportation). The last 100 years have been based on oil-let's base the next 100 years+ on NG. I think the way to do this is to win the debate of ideas. American people understand common sense-usually. lol. If this is about who can buy their way into it, energy policy will simply change from administration to administration; like financial regulation.
If you're jaded like me, you probably laughed at thought of the "debate of ideas." However, if our current crop of elected officials don't buy into this, it's up to us to elect those, republican or democrat, who do. We need officials who look to reason and the best argument. After all, this is what's best for our nation. That is truly how we enhance our future standing and set our kids up for success.
Views: 148
Comment
-
Comment by Mr. Majik on May 15, 2010 at 9:03am
-
The ideological side to debates about natural gas development, in fact much of energy development, is at least as strong, if not stronger than the economic. David Horowitz has coined the word "watermelons" for the greenies: green on the outside and red on the inside. Tragically, the left-right divide emerges from most debates these days. It is this eventuality that may be the cause for The Pickens Plan to be moving away from wind. Its vestige in the Plan may simply be a token political gesture.
-
Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on May 13, 2010 at 12:03am
-
Mr Majik, He hasn't omitted it period, but has quit emphasizing it and his focus has been on natural gas and getting the natural gas act passed. He still has a horse, albeit a miniature pony, in the wind energy
-
Comment by Mr. Majik on May 12, 2010 at 11:09pm
-
I was glad to read that the Pickens Plan had dropped wind energy from its agenda. However, I went their web site and it's still very much part of the Pickens Plan. I wish I were wrong. Can you please cite your source for your claim?
-
Comment by m. mossop on May 12, 2010 at 9:41pm
-
As an optimist, I think everything is going to work out fine, eventually. You see, it is years still until green energy can make itself work, and we are looking at, realistically, a long time. That is ok. Because, now, hopefully, the Marcellus will kick in, help this country out, and meanwhile the greenies can seriously get things ready so that come 25 - 50 - 100 years when our gr gr grandchildren need new forms of energy, the wind and solar will be affordable, work hand in hand with other traditional energy forms. Green is wonderful, yet, has to be made practical.
-
Comment by Anne Keller on May 12, 2010 at 3:59pm -
A lot of hopes are pinned on the shale gas - but conventional gas production is falling at the same time shale gas is rising. If the overall supply stays about the same, how is market share going to grow?
-
Comment by Michael Havelka on May 11, 2010 at 3:41pm
-
Great post Keith. I too enjoyed the WSJ article yesterday and think that hit many good points about what is developing in NG vs all other solutions. That is why I think that the "greenies" and the antibusiness lobby are rather scared of this shale gas boom. As Ms. Jaffe so well communicated in her piece, this is not just an energy game changer but a political one as well. Even the local politicians are starting to understand the magnitude of the Marcellus shale - PA and WV both have Democrat Governors but BOTH are full square behind continuation of drilling. In the end, I believe economic realities will win over platitudes of the radical environmentalists and the antibusiness lobby.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
You need to be a member of GoMarcellusShale.com to add comments!
Join GoMarcellusShale.com