...Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell are
responsible for more than 10% of all greenhouse
gases emitted since the industrial revolution, and
yet here they are, talking under the banner:
"Natural gas as a core pillar for a sustainable
future of the planet".
Exxon boss Rex Tillerson manages to use the
word environment 13 times in his opening
address. "[Our industry] can deliver significant
environmental benefits", he says, while Shell's
Ben Van Beurden followed with "gas can help in
securing a sustainable energy future."
These comments reflect the key theme at this
year's World Gas Conference in Paris, as energy
bosses look to rebrand their fossil-fuel
businesses as a crucial weapon in the fight
against climate change. (Or rather half their
businesses - there was no mention of the fact
they are also major oil producers).
But this is not as ridiculous as it may seem.
For a start, their argument that natural gas emits
half as much CO2 as coal and should, therefore,
be used to support renewables, is legitimate. As is
the point that US CO2 emissions have fallen
sharply on the back of shale gas discoveries.
But more importantly, this attempt to
disassociate gas from coal and oil, and present it
as a cleaner fuel source, shows that energy
companies have accepted the fact that reducing
CO2 emissions is now firmly established on
political and, increasingly, corporate agendas
across the world.
Polluter pays
A number of energy companies have signed up to
the World Bank initiative to end routine gas
flaring by 2030 - a process of burning off excess
gas at extraction that emits about 300m tonnes of
CO2 every year.
Many, including Total, BP and Shell, have also
made a joint call for an effective carbon price,
which would force big polluters to pay more for
the CO2 they emit. This may seem odd given
these very same companies will be hit, but this
call is clearly out of self interest - the biggest rival
to gas is coal, and coal producers will be hit far
harder.
Coal is cheap and abundant, and the only way gas
producers can compete on price is if carbon is
taxed, even if this means the oil side of the
business suffers.
But it's not just about CO2. Many gas executives
are at great pains to highlight the growing
problem of air quality around the world,
particularly in China.
Gas, Mr van Beurden says, emits 90% fewer air
pollutants than coal, a fact that should not be
overlooked in a world where there are seven
million deaths linked to pollution every year,
according to the World Health Organization.
Flexible fuel
And just as gas cannot compete with coal on
price, it cannot match the environmental
credentials of renewables. The gas industry has
responded by saying the two complement each
other perfectly. It argues renewables, such as
solar, wind and hydro power, cannot alone meet
the growing demand for energy, which is
estimated to rise by as much as 40% in the next
20 years.
Just as importantly, executives say, solar and wind
power are variable, so gas is the most
environmentally-friendly fossil fuel to act as a
back up when renewables cannot satisfy demand.
Gas plants are also relatively flexible and can be
turned on and off more quickly and cheaply than
coal and nuclear plants.
And they also point to the potential of gas for
storing energy from renewables. Batteries are
grabbing all the headlines, but gas offers a viable
alternative, particularly for larger-scale storage.
Finally, gas can be used to power vehicles with
much lower emissions than oil-based petrol or
diesel. Argentina, for example, has more than two
million natural gas vehicles, with Brazil not far
behind.
All of this means that "gas is not part of the
problem, but part of the solution," Mr Dudley
says.
Cutting emissions
This is all well and good, but the simple fact
remains that despite the industry's efforts to
convince us otherwise, natural gas remains a
fossil fuel that emits harmful CO2. And lots of it.
So simply switching from coal to gas is not the
answer. In fact, if all the coal power stations in the
world were turned off and replaced with modern
gas-fired plants, total global CO2 emissions would
fall by about five billion tonnes a year to 25 billion
tonnes, according to Laszlo Varro at the
International Energy Agency (IEA).
Emissions need to fall to about five billion tonnes
for the climate to stabilise, he says.
One way to make gas cleaner is carbon capture
and storage (CCS), but the world has been very
slow to develop this technology - there is just one
commercial scale CCS coal plant and no gas
plants.
What is clear, however, is that as things stand,
renewables alone cannot satisfy the world's
growing demand for energy. In theory, it would
be possible to power the world solely with solar
panels, but variability remains the major
drawback. And while batteries can be used to
store energy during the day for use at night, they
cannot store energy in the summer to use in
winter.
This is why "we are going to continue to need
conventional power generation for a long time,"
says Mr Varro. And as gas is the cleanest fossil
fuel, it is "the best candidate for filling the gap",
he adds.
For this reason natural gas use will grow
significantly in the coming years, potentially to the
point where it overtakes coal and oil as the
world's preferred hydrocarbon. At some point in
the next 20-30 years, however, gas use will have
to start falling to avoid dangerous climate change.
This reliance on gas could be reduced significantly
if governments invest in large-scale energy
storage systems and, more importantly, in
renewable energy that is not variable, such as
tidal and geothermal.
The technologies to wean ourselves off fossil fuels
are available. The problem is, with current models
of financing, developing them at scale is, for now,
proving too expensive.
responsible for more than 10% of all greenhouse
gases emitted since the industrial revolution, and
yet here they are, talking under the banner:
"Natural gas as a core pillar for a sustainable
future of the planet".
Exxon boss Rex Tillerson manages to use the
word environment 13 times in his opening
address. "[Our industry] can deliver significant
environmental benefits", he says, while Shell's
Ben Van Beurden followed with "gas can help in
securing a sustainable energy future."
These comments reflect the key theme at this
year's World Gas Conference in Paris, as energy
bosses look to rebrand their fossil-fuel
businesses as a crucial weapon in the fight
against climate change. (Or rather half their
businesses - there was no mention of the fact
they are also major oil producers).
But this is not as ridiculous as it may seem.
For a start, their argument that natural gas emits
half as much CO2 as coal and should, therefore,
be used to support renewables, is legitimate. As is
the point that US CO2 emissions have fallen
sharply on the back of shale gas discoveries.
But more importantly, this attempt to
disassociate gas from coal and oil, and present it
as a cleaner fuel source, shows that energy
companies have accepted the fact that reducing
CO2 emissions is now firmly established on
political and, increasingly, corporate agendas
across the world.
Polluter pays
A number of energy companies have signed up to
the World Bank initiative to end routine gas
flaring by 2030 - a process of burning off excess
gas at extraction that emits about 300m tonnes of
CO2 every year.
Many, including Total, BP and Shell, have also
made a joint call for an effective carbon price,
which would force big polluters to pay more for
the CO2 they emit. This may seem odd given
these very same companies will be hit, but this
call is clearly out of self interest - the biggest rival
to gas is coal, and coal producers will be hit far
harder.
Coal is cheap and abundant, and the only way gas
producers can compete on price is if carbon is
taxed, even if this means the oil side of the
business suffers.
But it's not just about CO2. Many gas executives
are at great pains to highlight the growing
problem of air quality around the world,
particularly in China.
Gas, Mr van Beurden says, emits 90% fewer air
pollutants than coal, a fact that should not be
overlooked in a world where there are seven
million deaths linked to pollution every year,
according to the World Health Organization.
Flexible fuel
And just as gas cannot compete with coal on
price, it cannot match the environmental
credentials of renewables. The gas industry has
responded by saying the two complement each
other perfectly. It argues renewables, such as
solar, wind and hydro power, cannot alone meet
the growing demand for energy, which is
estimated to rise by as much as 40% in the next
20 years.
Just as importantly, executives say, solar and wind
power are variable, so gas is the most
environmentally-friendly fossil fuel to act as a
back up when renewables cannot satisfy demand.
Gas plants are also relatively flexible and can be
turned on and off more quickly and cheaply than
coal and nuclear plants.
And they also point to the potential of gas for
storing energy from renewables. Batteries are
grabbing all the headlines, but gas offers a viable
alternative, particularly for larger-scale storage.
Finally, gas can be used to power vehicles with
much lower emissions than oil-based petrol or
diesel. Argentina, for example, has more than two
million natural gas vehicles, with Brazil not far
behind.
All of this means that "gas is not part of the
problem, but part of the solution," Mr Dudley
says.
Cutting emissions
This is all well and good, but the simple fact
remains that despite the industry's efforts to
convince us otherwise, natural gas remains a
fossil fuel that emits harmful CO2. And lots of it.
So simply switching from coal to gas is not the
answer. In fact, if all the coal power stations in the
world were turned off and replaced with modern
gas-fired plants, total global CO2 emissions would
fall by about five billion tonnes a year to 25 billion
tonnes, according to Laszlo Varro at the
International Energy Agency (IEA).
Emissions need to fall to about five billion tonnes
for the climate to stabilise, he says.
One way to make gas cleaner is carbon capture
and storage (CCS), but the world has been very
slow to develop this technology - there is just one
commercial scale CCS coal plant and no gas
plants.
What is clear, however, is that as things stand,
renewables alone cannot satisfy the world's
growing demand for energy. In theory, it would
be possible to power the world solely with solar
panels, but variability remains the major
drawback. And while batteries can be used to
store energy during the day for use at night, they
cannot store energy in the summer to use in
winter.
This is why "we are going to continue to need
conventional power generation for a long time,"
says Mr Varro. And as gas is the cleanest fossil
fuel, it is "the best candidate for filling the gap",
he adds.
For this reason natural gas use will grow
significantly in the coming years, potentially to the
point where it overtakes coal and oil as the
world's preferred hydrocarbon. At some point in
the next 20-30 years, however, gas use will have
to start falling to avoid dangerous climate change.
This reliance on gas could be reduced significantly
if governments invest in large-scale energy
storage systems and, more importantly, in
renewable energy that is not variable, such as
tidal and geothermal.
The technologies to wean ourselves off fossil fuels
are available. The problem is, with current models
of financing, developing them at scale is, for now,
proving too expensive.
Post a Comment