Less electricity was generated by coal than nuclear in the United States in 2020

[Sled Dog]

Well to tell the truth she wasn't really wrong. If the democrats in California had even an iota of intelligence or common sense instead of a multi billion bullet train to nowhere so Moonbeam could have a legacy the money should  have been spent on desalination plants.

They didn't finance the Fast Track To Nowhere for some vanity program for Moonbeam.

They wasted the money to give the goonions more tax dollars.   

Californians are really stupid people, they voted to spend the money themselves, on a ballot proposition.   Which is why I vote.  To say "no".

[Sled Dog]

When the 3,000 is inert and the other dangerously radioactive, I do not agree.

I would add reprocessing, like most of the world does.

I can agree on the lawyers.  Anything that dense would help against radiation.

Well, density isn't required.  It takes 24 inches of water, or lawyer-bags of water, to reduce gamma radiation by 90%, the so-called tenth-thickness.   So 48 inches of lawyer-bags would reduce the radiation by 99%.   When they fall down sick, just pull on the rope around their necks to get them to the coroners and put another lawyer-bag in.

(I do recall the Star Trek Next Generation where Picard had to deal with aliens who called people "bags of water".)

[Smokin Joe]

Well, density isn't required.  It takes 24 inches of water, or lawyer-bags of water, to reduce gamma radiation by 90%, the so-called tenth-thickness.   So 48 inches of lawyer-bags would reduce the radiation by 99%.   When they fall down sick, just pull on the rope around their necks to get them to the coroners and put another lawyer-bag in.

(I do recall the Star Trek Next Generation where Picard had to deal with aliens who called people "bags of water".)

Just keep stacking them on and build a dirt berm around them. Never can tell what in that mess was neutron activated.

[MajorClay]

More than 100 coal-fired plants have been replaced or converted to natural gas since 2011

I don't want to replace them, I want Gas fired plants in addition to Coal fired plants.

I believe that Coal and Nuclear should be most of our "base Load." And Nat Gas should be 95% of our "peak" capacity.

[thackney]

More than 100 coal-fired plants have been replaced or converted to natural gas since 2011

I don't want to replace them, I want Gas fired plants in addition to Coal fired plants.

I believe that Coal and Nuclear should be most of our "base Load." And Nat Gas should be 95% of our "peak" capacity.

Combined Cycle Nat Gas are very good sources of base load, higher efficiency than coal.

[Fishrrman]

Natural gas may replace coal in the [relatively] short term.
But in the long run, we'll have to go back to coal.
Or learn to live in the chilly darkness.

Nuclear is a non-starter, now and probably for many decades to come (if ever).

[Smokin Joe]

Combined Cycle Nat Gas are very good sources of base load, higher efficiency than coal.

I guess I'm looking long term, and I'll disagree. Aside from having a strong desire to diversify sources, Natural Gas is commonly a byproduct of oil production. In stratified reservoirs, you can produce the gas off the oil, but the result of that high GOR later is that the oil itself is harder to produce in the future. Otherwise, the gas is used to push the oil to the surface, and both are produced together. (Gas lift).
With the current 'war' on 'fossil fuels', it is notable that liquid petroleum and products are in the crosshairs, from drilling/permitting moratoria to shutdown of pipeline projects.

What that means is that, in the not so distant future, the decline in production which occurs as reservoirs are depleted will not have been replaced with new production from wells drilled in the time that those restrictions were in effect. Most horizontal ("shale") gas wells follow a harmonic decline curve, and initial declines are often steep and immediate after flowback. more on decline curves

As such, Natural Gas will eventually become less plentiful, and the price will go up. In some areas, those increases in price will matter little, but for those reliant on natural Gas as a primary heating fuel, or reliant on electricity generated from the use of Natural Gas, the effects will be harmful.

We have plenty of coal, have more uses for fly ash and other byproducts of its use than ever before, and have the technology to burn it more cleanly than ever. One way or another, we'll be burning it again.

[thackney]

I guess I'm looking long term, and I'll disagree. Aside from having a strong desire to diversify sources, Natural Gas is commonly a byproduct of oil production. In stratified reservoirs, you can produce the gas off the oil, but the result of that high GOR later is that the oil itself is harder to produce in the future. Otherwise, the gas is used to push the oil to the surface, and both are produced together. (Gas lift).
With the current 'war' on 'fossil fuels', it is notable that liquid petroleum and products are in the crosshairs, from drilling/permitting moratoria to shutdown of pipeline projects.

What that means is that, in the not so distant future, the decline in production which occurs as reservoirs are depleted will not have been replaced with new production from wells drilled in the time that those restrictions were in effect. Most horizontal ("shale") gas wells follow a harmonic decline curve, and initial declines are often steep and immediate after flowback. more on decline curves

As such, Natural Gas will eventually become less plentiful, and the price will go up. In some areas, those increases in price will matter little, but for those reliant on natural Gas as a primary heating fuel, or reliant on electricity generated from the use of Natural Gas, the effects will be harmful.

We have plenty of coal, have more uses for fly ash and other byproducts of its use than ever before, and have the technology to burn it more cleanly than ever. One way or another, we'll be burning it again.

In your area, associated gas from oil wells may be common, but not in most of the US.



https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41873#:~:text=Associated%20gas%20accounts%20for%2092,Bcf%2Fd%20of%20associated%20gas.&text=Associated%20gas%20in%20the%20U.S.,d%20between%202006%20and%202018.

[thackney]

Natural gas may replace coal in the [relatively] short term.
But in the long run, we'll have to go back to coal.
Or learn to live in the chilly darkness.

Nuclear is a non-starter, now and probably for many decades to come (if ever).

When you include harvesting methane for Natural Gas supplies from the Methane Hydrate deposits, there is a far larger supply than coal.

Methane hydrate: Dirty fuel or energy saviour?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27021610

...there is more energy in methane hydrates than in all the world's oil, coal and gas put together...

[Smokin Joe]

When you include harvesting methane for Natural Gas supplies from the Methane Hydrate deposits, there is a far larger supply than coal.

Methane hydrate: Dirty fuel or energy saviour?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27021610

...there is more energy in methane hydrates than in all the world's oil, coal and gas put together...

No doubt, but I think the hydrates are the mechanism by which the planet kicks into a warming cycle after an ice age. Lower sea levels by tying up water in ice sheets and at some point the hydrostatic pressure will drop enough to release the hydrates as gas, and CH4 has a much higher greenhouse effect than CO2. Just a theory, though.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I guess I'm looking long term, and I'll disagree. Aside from having a strong desire to diversify sources, Natural Gas is commonly a byproduct of oil production. In stratified reservoirs, you can produce the gas off the oil, but the result of that high GOR later is that the oil itself is harder to produce in the future. Otherwise, the gas is used to push the oil to the surface, and both are produced together. (Gas lift).
With the current 'war' on 'fossil fuels', it is notable that liquid petroleum and products are in the crosshairs, from drilling/permitting moratoria to shutdown of pipeline projects.

What that means is that, in the not so distant future, the decline in production which occurs as reservoirs are depleted will not have been replaced with new production from wells drilled in the time that those restrictions were in effect. Most horizontal ("shale") gas wells follow a harmonic decline curve, and initial declines are often steep and immediate after flowback. more on decline curves

As such, Natural Gas will eventually become less plentiful, and the price will go up. In some areas, those increases in price will matter little, but for those reliant on natural Gas as a primary heating fuel, or reliant on electricity generated from the use of Natural Gas, the effects will be harmful.

We have plenty of coal, have more uses for fly ash and other byproducts of its use than ever before, and have the technology to burn it more cleanly than ever. One way or another, we'll be burning it again.

Based upon my own career exploiting unconventionals in that past 2 decades across the continent and the globe, I offer a different opinion.

There are multitudes more natural gas available to tap.  Shales are notoriously low permeability formations and liquids have great difficulty flowing through them, even with the newer fracturing techniques available.

There are relatively few gas shales developed to date, primarily because the value to date has been in liquids extraction, not natural gas.  Yes, some like the Marcellus or the Barnett shale are shale gas reservoirs, but they have been tapped due to their productivity and proximity to sales outlets.

But the vast majority of shale natural gas remains in place, to be exploited by future generations.

Studies I have seen suggest magnitudes more hydrocarbons are available in-situ in the form of natural gas than what those containing liquids.

And of course other realizations of natural gas such as from the novel methanes extraction process are not included.

The point is I believe we will not have to concern ourselves with on running out of natural gas this century.

I do agree that the price of natural gas will go up as the liquids value is not present to justify extraction, and also believe coal is one to continue to exploit due to its massive availability as a ready-to-use energy source.

[Smokin Joe]

Based upon my own career exploiting unconventionals in that past 2 decades across the continent and the globe, I offer a different opinion.

There are multitudes more natural gas available to tap.  Shales are notoriously low permeability formations and liquids have great difficulty flowing through them, even with the newer fracturing techniques available.

There are relatively few gas shales developed to date, primarily because the value to date has been in liquids extraction, not natural gas.  Yes, some like the Marcellus or the Barnett shale are shale gas reservoirs, but they have been tapped due to their productivity and proximity to sales outlets.

But the vast majority of shale natural gas remains in place, to be exploited by future generations.

Studies I have seen suggest magnitudes more hydrocarbons are available in-situ in the form of natural gas than what those containing liquids.

And of course other realizations of natural gas such as from the novel methanes extraction process are not included.

The point is I believe we will not have to concern ourselves with on running out of natural gas this century.

I do agree that the price of natural gas will go up as the liquids value is not present to justify extraction, and also believe coal is one to continue to exploit due to its massive availability as a ready-to-use energy source.

Looking at the short term, and in the domestic marketplace, I suspect gas will see some resurgence in drilling, but only where the leases fall under private land. The Biden Administration has thrown a definite stumbling block in front of any new development under Federal Land, and that's a lot of the US west of the Mississippi.
I started in the patch in '79, and got in fairly early on the horizontal well drilling in the Williston Basin in 1990, and got going on unconventionals in the Bakken in Elm Coulee Field over in MT in 2000 (very early Bakken boom), so I agree that unconventional resources are a game changer. A colleague was doing coal bed methane wells in Wyoming during that boom, but I do not think that will be likely to make a comeback because of the dewatering involved.

But I think that only a balanced (based on utility, not politics) portfolio of energy sources will be effective and economical, and I do not think the Biden Administration has its finger on that pulse.