What Do Falling Natural Gas Prices Mean for Renewables?

Stephen Lacey, Climate Progress
January 13, 2012 | 28 Comments

With a glut of shale gas on the market, natural gas prices continue to tumble in the U.S. And they'll only fall more throughout the year.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average natural gas prices on the wholesale spot market dropped another 9% in 2011, falling to the second-lowest price average since 2002. And the agency expects prices to fall substantially in 2012 due to record-high inventories of supply.

In a few short years, domestic energy supply has undergone a major shift in favor of natural gas, challenging the economics of renewable energy technologies that compete directly with the resource. It’s not exactly the kind of shift that renewable energy proponents imagined. But it has helped keep electricity and heating prices low, while also shifting enthusiasm away from coal. Those are notable short-term victories — assuming renewables don’t get swept aside in the process.

The picture is mixed. Although wind development has dropped off a cliff in states like Texas, in part because of low gas prices, Bloomberg New Energy Finance believes that wind will be competitive across the board with natural gas by 2016. And in utility-scale solar, large photovoltaic projects are also keeping pace with projected prices of natural gas.

However, a study released earlier this month by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology modeled an energy scenario with and without shale gas, finding that renewables were indeed being negatively impacted:

The continued need for strong renewables prompts concerns, as the study finds that shale use suppresses the development of renewables. Under one scenario, for example, the researchers impose a renewable-fuel mandate. They find that, with shale, renewable use never goes beyond the 25 percent minimum standard they set — but when shale is removed from the market, renewables gain more ground.

We should also always remember that some of the leading (center-right) economists in the country — Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus — publishing in a top economics journal found that natural gas damages were larger than its value added for electricity generation even at a low-ball carbon price of $27 per ton. At a price of $65 a ton of carbon, the total damages from natural gas are more than double its value-added.

That means renewable energy deserves strong support by state and federal policymakers even in the face of low natural gas prices.

So will the slide in gas prices continue? Not according to some forecasts. EIA expects prices to riseagain in 2013. With an increase in exports, a build out of new combined cycle power plants and continued questions about how much shale gas is actually in the ground (it’s still a lot, even on the low end of estimates), IDC Energy Insights Analyst Sam Jaffe doesn’t see how prices can stay as low as they are today:

Electric power production accounted for approximately 24% of overall U.S. gas consumption. Keep in mind that much of that power production is done with peaker plants, not baseload plants. The new plants that are being built are mostly combined cycle baseload plants, thus if we were to double NG-sourced electricity over the next decade, it would actually end up with a tripling of NG consumption by the power sector. That means an overall doubling (approximately) of NG demand. There’s no way that you can double demand in a product and expect its price to remain the same.

The MIT researchers who found that shale gas has a substantial impact to renewable energy argued the same thing:

But [Henry Jacoby, co-director emeritus of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change] warns, “Natural gas is a finite resource. We will eventually run into depletion and higher cost.” He adds, “It still releases greenhouse gas emissions. So if we’re going to get to a point where we strictly limit those emissions, we need renewables.”

In the meantime, however, gas prices are very low. And aside from the political freeze in Washington, this will be one of the biggest challenges for renewable energy in 2012.

However, it does say a lot that renewable energy technologies continue to nip at the heels of natural gas, even with a “revolution” underway in shale gas production.

This article was originally published on Climate Progress and was republished with permission.

28 Comments

Fred Linn
January 28, 2012

(cont.)

We even have vehicles available that can use all three, gasoline, ethanol, and/or CNG(methane). The Fiat Siena Tetrafuel can run on petroleum gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, pure hydrous ethanol(straight from the still, unblended) and/or CH4. The engine has an onboard computer to switch the engine to preferentially use the least expensive fuel for the greatest economy, and to best meet road conditions. All the consumer does is key in the fuel price when he fills up---the computer does the rest. The Fiat Siena is in manufacture, on sale and in use on the road by consumers today in Brazil and Argentina, and has been for the last four years.

We need to mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US must be multi-fuel and biofuel capable. Let consumers decide what they want to fuel their vehicle with. There are some people who resist change because they are set in their ways and just don't want to change no matter what. Fine, let them use gasoline if they want. MOST consumers are going to use what costs least, and works best. And that will be biofuels for the most part.

That is how I think we can make the change happen. Make vehicles that allow consumers the freedom to choose their fuel----and then leave it up to consumers what they choose.

Once we have that freedom for consumers---there is even a way that consumers can, in effect, drive their vehicles on free solar power---no batteries required.

I think that when most consumers find out that they can drive their vehicles for free using solar power(compared to what they are paying right now for gasoline)----- consumers will be more than happy with the change.

People like free stuff.

Fred Linn
January 28, 2012

Gregor S--------" Fred, I was not knocking the use of Bio-methane or any biofuel. I assure you it makes sense if it is available and less expensive to produce. But I am not the one you have to convince. You MUST convince the Legislators and politicians that control the money strings of Congress. Even the President can't exactly help you succeed, even if he totally agreed with your premise of affordability. "---------

Yes, you are right. Biofuels do no good if consumers can not use them. However, there is an ace in the sleeve.

Internal combustion engines can use both petroleum and biofuels in the same engine. You are using E10 now---10% ethanol. With the modifications, basically upgrades to cheap plastic parts that are not resistant to the better solvent qualities of alcohols compared to gasoline(which is why engines run much cleaner than petroleum)----we can use both. These are Flex Fuel engines, we can use up to E85(85% ethanol) in a Flex Fuel engine, or any mix of petroleum/ethanol in between. Just fill up with whatever is available. Or, with the use of blender pumps, we can mix any fuel concentration we want, right at the pump. The price difference for a Flex Fuel vehicle is minimal to the same as a conventional gasoline only vehicle. The very first Model T Ford introduced in 1908 could be ordered with an adjustable Holly carburetor that could be set to run on either gasoline or ethanol.

Methane can be used by adjusting the intake manifold to handle either fuel. There are two fuel tanks, and the fuel source can be selected at the flip of a switch. Due to the fact that CH4 is already a gas there are no vaporization problems, no matter how cold it gets. And CH4 burns so clean, it is rated NZE(near zero emissions) by CARB. To drive the same distance using CH4 costs less than 1/2 the cost to drive the same distance using gasoline.

(cont.)

Gregory L Smith
January 27, 2012

Fred, I was not knocking the use of Bio-methane or any biofuel. I assure you it makes sense if it is available and less expensive to produce. But I am not the one you have to convince. You MUST convince the Legislators and politicians that control the money strings of Congress. Even the President can't exactly help you succeed, even if he totally agreed with your premise of affordability. But I also know that CO2 is a game changer and wasting time using fuels that create CO2 is a game losing strategy. SO If you can quickly impliment the uses of biofuels, yes, you will help reduce CO2 problems in our atmosphere and many will applaude your efforts. But Coal and Oil are not friendly components of our fueling issues. They have serious negative impacts and they are the ones that need to be reduced and if possible eliminated, in exchange for Solar and Wind, Biomass and natural fuels that do not require destroying water resources or polluting rivers and streams with PCBs or with Aldehydes and even coal ash poisons such as mercury or arsenic. Our world has a long life ahead of it, but we do not. How we deal with these issues not only affects us in our senior years, but affects our children and their children for generations to come. If we neglect fixing it now, we are neglecting our future and our best outcomes as humans, dealing with events and problems better, which only makes mutual sense and helps everyone. However, it will disadvantage those stuck in old idea mindsets, and even those can be remediated, if they can open their minds to realizing their roles by changing what they do and how they get things done in our society.

Charles Blackwell
January 27, 2012

1 - I don't know about the non-USA world population, but my opinion is that USAers tend to be in denial until they are hurting. If I am correct, then USA interest in alternate enery supplies will falter if there is general belief that there is adequate natural gas (NG) to supply needs.
2 - I haven't noticed PG&E unit charges for NG being reduced with greater availability of NG. In fact my per unit charge has gone up.
3 - My knowledge of the body of facts is minimal, but I am convinced that if potable water supplies for populations is negatively impacted by the totality of the fracturing process, then we will see catastrophes.

Fred Linn
January 27, 2012

Gregor S, you have a lot to learn. I have neither the time nor the space to answer every assertion you make.

In this limited forum the best I can do is tell you that every single issue that you bring up is easily and cleanly solvable using technology we have had over 100 years.

We can do anything and everything we need done, cleanly, efficiently and without relying on fossil fuels at all, and we have been able to do it all along.

FYI---since we can make methane, and we can mix it in any proportion with fossil methane we can easily phase out the use of fossil natural gas. Estimates are that we have about 100 years of reserves of natural gas available. If we build out biomethane production to replace fossil natural gas use at the rate of 1%/year---at the end of 100 years, we will be using 100% biomethane---and 1/2 of the current fossil natural gas will remain in the ground.

Gregory L Smith
January 27, 2012

Fred-linn, Naturally, Solar energy offers advantages natural gas does not have, but better than that alone, Solar can convert water into Hydrogen and Oxygen without losing efficiency and can be stored on site near a cogeneration facility that uses Carbon dioxide infused with Hydrogen, to be used as methane, and that can run the cogeneration component while the hydrogen can be remixed with oxygen via a hydrogen fuel cell and produce significant energy and water vapor that does not difuse nor is it ineffective. If Utilities used the so-called Bulgarian method of cogeneration, the USA would never need to use coal again for energy uses. It could use it as building material or as space structures via graphine and other safe and super strong applications. Natural gas will clearly be used as a transportation gas for another 20 years and perhaps a heating fuel for another 20-30 years, so isn't it needful right now to start forming the future resources that will run the world in the next 30 years? Diffusion of hydrogen is a volatile issue, but learning how to use it is essential, as our future will be using it as a transfer system for decades. We even will be harvesting it from other planets eventually, because our own world will lose enough of it to heat our world if we do not act to ensure we have sufficient water reserves and atmospheric hydrogen. Using fossil fuels just exasurbates the decline in our water resources, and as a result, species and global climate adjustments will continue from now onward until we are either unable to go someplace else or we die where we are, due to greenhouse effects. It is that dangerous not to consider our fate now, instead of later due to current ability to abuse our planet. It isn't if, it is when...

ANONYMOUS
January 27, 2012

Fred,
At the risk of re-stating the obvious I point out that obviously some anaerobic digestion occurs naturally. However, production of biomethane typically involves placing wastes that would decay by aerobic digestion into man-made environments that instead promote anaerobic digestion creating methane that would not have occurred naturally. You cannot claim a greenhouse gas credit for producing and then burning that stuff--it would not have existed without human intervention. Such methane production and use is merely carbon neutral. If you mix it with 94% fossil methane you do NOT magically have an environmentally safe fuel--just one that is 94% as bad a fossil sourced methane.
Steven

Fred Linn
January 27, 2012

Gregor S--------" Eventually, Hydrogen fuel cell technology could replace natural gas ........."-----------

Not too likely. CH4 is a hydrocarbon and can be used directly in catalytic converts to produce either heat or electricity directly. It has been done for years. You have a catalytic converter on your car. It converts unburned hydrocarbons into heat----which is why there is a metal shroud around the converter.

Electricity can also be produced using several electrochemical pathways. The Bloom Box is one example of several in use.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is the lightest element, and is not very energy dense. It works ok as a fuel, but unless you are using liquid hydrogen is very hard to store and transport in usable amounts. Cryogenic liquid hydrogen is difficult to make, store and transport, and entails large losses due to boil off, making overall efficiency low.

Fred Linn
January 27, 2012

Steven-------go to any swamp, slough, peat bog or stagnant water with organic matter in it. You will see bubbles rising to the surface. That is methane. This is the reason it was known for centuries as "swamp gas". It is also the reason why there is fossil natural gas today. When conditions are right, the methane becomes trapped in the sediment layers under the water it is formed in. Fossil natural gas is "swamp gas" that formed in ancient swamps and bogs millions of years ago.

Gregory L Smith
January 26, 2012

If we believe in market pressures, this issue will correctly right itself, by enabling transportation companies to save a ton of money for transporting school kids and also use in several industries where there are suitable rewards for using natural gas. But, it is also an opportunity to solve a short term problem with a longer term solution. If Solar and Natural gas were teamed up to offer peak and non-peak energy support, the costs reflected for converting just to natural gas from coal would be materially circomvented. Eventually, Hydrogen fuel cell technology could replace natural gas and the nation, even the world would significantly benefit. So, why not focus on what would help, instead of wringing your hands worried about spot natural gas markets? Natural gas prices will rise in a year...

Fred Linn
January 24, 2012

Bob----not all fracking techniques use water or toxic chemicals.

http://www.gasfrac.com/

Seismic instability is still a valid concern I think.

Biomethane is low tech, easy and inexpensive to produce and can be made from any type of biomass at all, including sewage and landfills.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
January 24, 2012

A couple of weeks ago I stumbled onto a discussion in a linked in group that I belong that was about "fracking and seismic risks".

I commented about my fear of the sheer amount of water that is used in the process and was SLAMMED! Called names and basically belittled!

When I thought about the criticisms though, I had to admit that I really hadn't done that much studying on the subject, so I dove in and started reading. What I found out is that this technology comes with some pretty steep costs.

As I originally feared, the process does indeed use tremendous amounts of fresh water (Chesapeake Energy admits to using something like 5.4 million gallon per well). In addition to simply using the water, they mix it with a bunch of toxic chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic (up to about 90,000 gallons per well).

When they pump this "fracking fluid" into the earth, they only recover between 20% and 80% of it back. The rest is lost where it can eventually migrate to aquifers. If this process takes long enough and the fluid passes through enough porous rock formations, the particulate matter can be filtered out by the earth, but not the dissolved toxins.

Then there is the original topic of the discussion, the seismic consequences of the technology. While the fracturing of the rock formations should be very localized, there is no denying that seismic activity, including some moderate activity, increases around fracked wells.

Finally, I read up that the energy payback factor for gas in general was only between 2 and 4. Taking into account the additional energy inputs of fracking, I wonder if it really makes economic sense to allow this process.

I'd love to hear from somebody who knows what the specific energy payback of fracke gas is, so if you know, please contact me.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Fred Linn
January 23, 2012

Dennis----I see falling NG prices and rising gasoline prices as a rare opportunity.

Both Forbes and Bloomberg are predicting $5/gal. gasoline by the end of summer.

The NG industry of coarse wants higher prices for their product. Price is controlled by two factors---supply and demand. Supply has increased spectacularly due to improved technology and that cat is out of the bag. Competition will keep supply high for now, but as you point out, that may be short lived. So, the other option is to increase demand. A hard push to replace gasoline as a motor fuel with already cheaper and cleaner CNG would increase demand. And in the lead time we have before supply begins to plummet disasterously, work at increasing production of CH4 by anaerobic digestion. As wells play replace them with biomethane.

We replace increasingly expensive. economically and environmentally destructive petroleum oil with natural gas---and as time progresses, the mix of fossil methane to biomethane in what we use decreases. Clean air, clean water, and increasingly shrinking negative balance of trade deficits due to importing petroleum shrink.

We use solar thermal to heat buildings and water---it is low cost and easy to manufacture, install, maintain and it is highly effective and efficient. The NG that we don't use to heat buildings and water is now free to power our vehicles and generate electricity.

Dennis Houghton
January 23, 2012

The gas industry expects continued low prices for 2-5 years. A rational business plan for a LNG plant or electrical generation plant would expect a tripling of price for input within 5 years based on historical records. The typical newly drilled gas well loses 30% of production capacity in the first year and falls below economic viability by 5 years, without hydraulic fracturing. Technologically advanced methods have extended well productive life significantly, allowing good profits on continued use of otherwise fully depreciated pipeline and compressor infrastructure. NG remains a finite resource with huge future distribution problems.

The impact of temporarily low NG prices will be different for each type of energy source being developed. As a distributed PV advocate I find the proliferation of NG peaker plants as a very positive long-term development. Wind developers will also benefit with the peaker plants smoothing the intermittency of their output.

Natural gas is probably the least damaging of the caveman fuels we burn to heat water and space. Few of the renewable combustion fuels now being developed have any chance of replacing piped NG in the US home or business. Most are being developed as alternative ICE fuels. The Natural Gas Industry sees their product as the motor fuel of the future as well as an export product as LNG. If we start to see an investment in LNG production and internal distribution then renewable fuel developers are probably doomed.

ANONYMOUS
January 20, 2012

Why do some posters see the current availability of lower cost natural gas supplies as a bad thing? Wind is only somewhat competitive with NG in the few areas where NG is costly. There is nowhere that solar is cost effective.

Recent technological advances have significantly lowered natural gas production costs. So much so, that in just a few short years, the US has now become the world's largest producer of natural gas. Cheap energy is a good thing for our country. So rather than sitting around, sniveling and whining non-sense about how cheap natural gas is "destroying the environment", maybe you people should instead suck-it-up and learn to compete in the free market.

Annual prices for wind energy have been falling faster than natural gas prices, not to mention that natural gas is a "finite resource", while wind is "renewable". If you green energy people continue to complain about having to compete with natural gas in the free market, that simply means you are admitting that the gas companies are smarter than you.

ANONYMOUS
January 18, 2012

In comment 10 and 12, Fred argues that using biomethane is somehow green house gas negative and can thus compensate for the use of large percentages of fossil methane. He is alone in this view, biomethane is typically considered carbon neutral or nearly carbon neutral. One should note carefully that production of biomethane typically requires use of an anaerobic digestor to process wastes that typically would decompose in the presence of O2 and therefore not produce methane as a product but would instead produce CO2. Production of biomethane therefore increases the amount of methane above what would occur naturally and once it is burned produces the same amount of CO2 that would have been produced with aerobic digestion. If Fred wants to collect some natural source of atmospheric methane, such as cow flatulence, and burn this before it gets into the atmosphere, that would indeed lead to a reduction in the green house gas effect. However, biomethane is rarely produced merely by collecting natural emissions of methane. This is the flaw in Fred's argument and the reason why biomethane is merely classed as being carbon neutral.
Steven

Fred Linn
January 18, 2012

Steven-------" Fred's argument is deeply flawed. For instance, he assumes that all biomethane used as a fuel would have otherwise found its way into the atmosphere, whereas typically it simply would never have been produced. This error has been pointed out to Fred before, so either he is a slow learner, very forgetful, or disingenuous in the use of his talking points."--------

Bacteria produce methane in nature whether we capture and use it or not. If we do not capture it and use it, it goes into the atmosphere and produces a GHG effect on the atmosphere 17X greater than that produced by CO2. It is like going to the supermarket and buying apples and ignoring the apple tree in your backyard. We need to treat sewage and tap landfills anyway.

You are dumber than a box of rocks.

Thomas M
January 18, 2012

Biomethane, we all have a supply of it running out our roof. Something to think about when the SH** hits the fan....

ANONYMOUS
January 18, 2012

Regarding Fred's remarks in comment #9:

Naturally, if the price of fossil methane falls below the price to produce renewable sources of methane producers of the later will stop production.

Fred claims: "If we mix only 6% biomethane into the fossil natural gas, it would have very little effect on the price. Only 6% of the difference of the cost between fossil natural gas and biomethane production. But the resulting mixture would produce GHG effect neutral emissions because you are exchanging a high greenhouse effect gas(CH4) to low greenhouse effect gas, CO2."

Fred's argument is deeply flawed. For instance, he assumes that all biomethane used as a fuel would have otherwise found its way into the atmosphere, whereas typically it simply would never have been produced. This error has been pointed out to Fred before, so either he is a slow learner, very forgetful, or disingenuous in the use of his talking points.

Steven

Fred Linn
January 18, 2012

Steven-----

Demand controls price, not production. If production rises, and there is no corresponding rise demand, price falls.

So what if price falls? It is still possible to use biomethane as well. Because it is the same stuff, it can be used interchangeably or in mixture with no loss of performance.

If people switch to bi-fuel vehicles that can use (fossil)natural gas----it still burns clean(improves air quality) and reduces CO2 emissions 1/3. If it is used to replace coal, it burns clean, and reduces CO2 to less than 1/2.

If we mix only 6% biomethane into the fossil natural gas, it would have very little effect on the price. Only 6% of the difference of the cost between fossil natural gas and biomethane production. But the resulting mixture would produce GHG effect neutral emissions because you are exchanging a high greenhouse effect gas(CH4) to low greenhouse effect gas, CO2.

Not to mention that we need to treat sewage anyway. Methane is already produced when we treat sewage----we might as well use it instead of just wasting the energy as is done now.

About 60% of residential natural gas use is to heat water. If homeowners heated water with solar thermal power---and then used the natural gas saved in their vehicles, most homeowners would have more energy than they need for their vehicle. It takes a lot of energy to heat water, and most water heaters run 24/7. Nobody drives their vehicle 24/7. Heat your water with solar thermal, use the saved CH4 in your car, and you are running on solar power.

bruce gladstone
January 17, 2012

People, I track natural gas prices with stocks i own ( DMLP and SJT.) It is falling really low today (NGAS.L 0.14 .) I am not saying its right, but you put this price together with Mitt Romney and I see real trouble for the entire renewable sector end of 2012.

ANONYMOUS
January 15, 2012

Fred writes in comment #6:
"Natural gas, methane, CH4 is both a fossil fuel AND a biofuel. "

This is trivially true, but one wonders what his point is. Shale methane is what is pushing down the price of natural gas and that is a fossil fuel. If the price of natural gas drops below the cost to produce it from renewable sources that segment of the renewables market will also be impacted.

There are lots of state RPS programs that should keep the renewables market moving along even if some of the technologies can't compete with natural gas yet. I don't think this is going to cause a complete collapse of the renewables market. It will, however, help ease out coal usage while keeping electricity prices low--it is hard to get upset about those two effects.

Steven

Fred Linn
January 15, 2012

Natural gas, methane, CH4 is both a fossil fuel AND a biofuel.

Same stuff, CH4.

Thomas M
January 14, 2012

Hey Bill, it's not such much as being upset, it's more the unbelievable ignorance and lack of memory of the public, as well as those in the know, along with the dollar as you mention, that makes me shake my head in wonder. You would think people would be smart enough not to put their hands in the fire after being burnt several times. I guess they enjoy the suffering and the pain, and possibly believe, because of some report or some crazy person's advice, that next time they won't get burned. Guess it's more like a moth drawn to a flame...rather than the monkey who doesn't realize he has to drop the cookie and find an alternative method in order to get the reward.

William Fitch
January 14, 2012

Hi:

Thomas, don't get so upset...LOL..
Its very simple... choices are made by the dollar...
Harm caused is only bad if there is accountability to the energy producers who produced it, and there is not... so, it does not effect profit...
Deaths are denied and shadowed behind plausible deniability..
Harm to the environment, no matter how bad, is all soft on an accounting spreadsheet... the fact that it may kill everyone down the road is not a problem.
Think of it like perfect automation. A perfect corporation with a dark mfg site and only a board of directors. Business says that this is perfection. The fact that no one would have a job, and therefore no money, to buy any of the products that were being produced by the 'dark site' is not an interest for that corporation. They would continue this knowing that in the end, it all will collapse. Its like the monkey with his hand in the cookie jar. He knows he is going to get nailed if he continues to hold on, but he does it anyway....

.....Bill

Thomas M
January 14, 2012

How many time do we have to see this scenario? Gasoline shortages, utility rates increasing and decreasing, natural gas and oil shortages and abundancies. All schemes to make us believe things that are usually not true. Renewable energy sources have been promoted and demoted throughout their lifetime. Why are government and other related buildings going solar using tax payers dollars? They want to make sure they have the power to keep their agenda up and running despite their claims.
Solar power has been used in space applications since the programs began. So there must be something to it if they are using it in such harsh conditions for life support, yet they demote it's use for life here on Earth keeping us dependent on fossil fuels for their profit and our demise.
Listening to their confusing propaganda causing people to switch back and forth between utilities, just because they cause a rise in one and a fall in another, is just nonsense. All fuels have a BTU rating and all are base on this rating. Learning how to calculate cost from any energy source shows the true cost. The only real way to save energy is to reduce consumtion and take advantage of natural means of free energy.

ANONYMOUS
January 14, 2012

It is hard to follow the reasoning in this remark:
"The new plants that are being built are mostly combined cycle baseload plants, thus if we were to double NG-sourced electricity over the next decade, it would actually end up with a tripling of NG consumption by the power sector."

Now a significant amount of natural gas is used in peaker plants that have lower efficiency than combined cycle plants. If you double electricity produced by natural gas by increasing combined cycle plants it will cause gas consumption to increase by LESS than a factor of two--certainly not a "tripling".
Steven

Ken Schwantje
January 13, 2012

The steady decline in the price of natural gas from its peak(s) back in 2006/08 changed biomass business cases I was looking to turn positive back then. From almost 16 to less than 3 makes a huge difference.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Stephen Lacey

I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, where I contributed stories and hosted the Inside Renewable Energy Podcast. Keep...