Domestic Natural Gas

Introduction 

Due to its natural abundance and efficient delivery, natural gas is perhaps a highly affordable energy source. Technological advances, along with accessible and abundant domestic resources have made the use of domestic natural gas popular among United States households. This particular source of energy provides the United States with the opportunity to achieve energy independence. Currently, there is enough natural gas, in its traditional form, to meet the country's demand for over 100 years effectively. It is important to realize that new technologies have offered the potential to capture methane, which is the primary ingredient of natural gas. 

Uses of Domestic Natural Gas 

Domestic natural gas has several uses. It is mainly used as a heating and cooking fuel in the majority of United States households. For instance, natural gas accounted for about 30 percent of the energy consumed in the United States. Domestic natural gas was used to heat buildings, heat water, bake foods, and run air conditioners. Additionally, the United States consumed over 22.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2009. Most of the gas was mainly delivered to approximately 70 million homes through more than a million miles of natural gas pipeline. 

For a significantly long time, natural shale gas has been known to be plentiful in the United States. However, the cumbersome task of finding and extracting it from below the surface of the earth is generally cost-prohibitive for many potential investors. Basically, there are two primary natural gas extraction processes used: hydraulic fracturing, and horizontal drilling. Although the two processes are considered effective, they present their own set of environmental and safety concerns. It is worth realizing that the domestic natural gas industry is extracting a significant quantity of gas from challenging resource types, which include tight gas, sour gas, shale gas, and coal-bed methane. 

Advantages of Domestic Natural Gas 

Domestic natural is relatively environmentally clean, particularly when compared to other fossil fuels. The combustion process of domestic natural gas is nearly perfect, with very few by-products emitted into the atmosphere during combustion. With the introduction of latest technologies, some of the pollutants targeted by the Clean Air Act can be reduced significantly. Basically, the blue flame normally seen when natural gas is ignited signifies that the combustion process is nearly perfect. The natural gas burns cleanly, and it does not leave behind any unpleasant odor, soot or even ash. This means that the use of domestic natural gas is not associated with a lot of wastes, compared to other sources of energy. Moreover, switching to natural gas helps in eliminating the need to have an underground storage tank. This effectively eliminates the threat of soil contamination, oils spills, as well as the costly environmental clean-up. Furthermore, it is worth realizing that natural gas is generally non-toxic. As such, if at all inhaled, the natural gas is not either poisonous or harmful to humans. 

Domestic natural gas is not only economical, but also efficient. Essentially, natural gas is convenient in terms of delivery and use. The energy resource is normally piped directly to the households through a safe pipeline system. As such, there is generally no need to schedule oil deliveries or store oil in onsite tanks. It is also worth pointing out the fact that there is an abundant supply of domestic natural gas. The United States imports over half of the oil available for use in the country. The major disadvantage of oil is that its price and supply is generally susceptible to international events. This implies that natural gas is the best alternative source of energy due to its unmatched reliability. The pipeline system that is usually used to deliver natural gas cannot be easily affected by adverse weather conditions. However, the oil must always be trucked to the location of the customers, and truck deliveries are often susceptible to adverse weather conditions. 

Finally, domestic natural gas has a relatively enviable safety record, particularly in households. Normally, an odorant is added to domestic natural gas during production. As such, the smell of the gas helps the users to detect any gas leakage so that the necessary precautions can be taken. Therefore, households that use natural gas are safer. 

Disadvantages of Domestic Natural Gas 

Just like any other fossil fuel, domestic natural gas is a non-renewable source of energy. There is a likelihood that natural gas could get depleted in the future. As such, it is important to focus on the more renewable source of energy. As other fossil fuels get depleted, natural gas could also be depleted. 

Natural gas emits a considerable amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. High volumes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere result in undesirable climatic effects around the globe. 

The process of producing natural gas is significantly long. It takes a lot of time and manpower to process natural gas. Additionally, the production process involves emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As such, the overall life-cycle of domestic natural gas may have disastrous effects on the environment. 

Domestic natural gas is highly flammable, and any leakage of the gas could lead to a lot of destruction. Additionally, when the gas is inhaled, it can be extremely toxic. Without an odorant, the gas can pass undetected, leading to serious consequences. 

Assumption 

The major problem with domestic natural gas is that its use leads to the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Another problem relates to the fact that the gas is a non-renewable source of energy. As such, it could get depleted in the future. Therefore, the main assumption that I will be discussing in my QEP research is that domestic natural gas has negative environmental effects and it could be depleted in the future, as it is a non-renewable source of energy. 

Annotated Bibliography 

Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2007). Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environmental science & technology , 41 (17), 6290-6296. 

The article highlights that the demand for natural gas in the United States will increase significantly. Estimates suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) (Jaramilo et al., 2007) . This suggests that there might be a shortage of natural gas in the United States, and the country will rely on imported natural gas. As such, the supply of natural gas will be influenced by international events, and it will no longer be a reliable source of energy. 

Vaillant, S. R., & Gastec, A. S. (1999). Catalytic combustion in a domestic natural gas burner. Catalysis Today , 47 (1-4), 415-420. 

The journal highlights the fact that domestic natural gas use leads to the emission of harmful gases to the atmosphere, such as nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide. In fact, some of the gases are still emitted to the atmosphere even with a catalytically stabilized burner. The catalytically stabilised boiler emitted about 5 ppm NOx and 0 ppm CO (Valliant & Gastec, 1999) . This means that the use of natural gas could have detrimental effects on the environment. 

Burnham, A., Han, J., Clark, C. E., Wang, M., Dunn, J. B., & Palou-Rivera, I. (2011). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, natural gas, coal, and petroleum. Environmental science & technology , 46 (2), 619-627. 

The journal focuses on methane emissions from shale gas well completions, as well as land dereliction associated with the extraction process. The technologies and practices that have enabled the recent boom in shale gas production have also brought attention to the environmental impacts of its use (Burnham et al., 2011). This means that the production process of domestic natural gas could negatively impact the environment. 

Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change , 106 (4), 679. 

The journal specifically evaluates the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high volume hydraulic fracturing from the shale formation. Essentially, t he higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured (Howarth et al., 2011). Therefore, the process of domestic natural gas production has significant environmental impacts that are negative. 

Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Comparative analysis of the production costs and life-cycle GHG emissions of FT liquid fuels from coal and natural gas. 

The Journal points out the potential shortage of natural gas resources in the United States. This means that the use of domestic natural gas is generally unsustainable. R ecent reports suggest there is uncertainty about the availability of economically viable coal resources in the United States (Jaramilo et al., 2008). As such, there is a need for more reliable sources of energy for United States' households. 

Economides, M. J., & Wood, D. A. (2009). The state of natural gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering , 1 (1-2), 1-13. 

The paper posits that the global demand for domestic natural gas is set to increase significantly. Thus, many households are expected to switch to domestic natural gas. The trend towards natural gas becoming the premium fuel of the world economy is not now easily reversible (Economides & Wood, 2009) . However, there are concerns regarding the potential increase in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. 

Brkić, D., & Tanasković, T. I. (2008). Systematic approach to natural gas usage for domestic heating in urban areas. Energy , 33 (12), 1738-1753. 

The journal focuses on the use of natural gas for heating in households. Natural gas can be used for satisfying population needs for heating (Brkić & Tanasković, 2008). This points to the fact that the demand for natural gas will significantly rise in the future, led to its depletion. Therefore, it is important to focus more on renewable source of energy. 

Wang, Q., Chen, X., Jha, A. N., & Rogers, H. (2014). Natural gas from shale formation–the evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 30 , 1-28. 

The journal gives a detailed account of the United States’ shale gas history. However, the US shale gas revolution would be curbed, if the environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing are not managed effectively (Wang et al., 2014). This points out to the idea that natural gas processing may lead to negative environmental impacts. 

Fontenot, B. E., Hunt, L. R., Hildenbrand, Z. L., Carlton Jr, D. D., Oka, H., Walton, J. L., ... & Schug, K. A. (2013). An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environmental Science & Technology , 47 (17), 10032-10040. 

The journal highlights the potential environmental effects of natural gas production in the United States. Analyses revealed that arsenic, selenium, strontium and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Limit in water well near extraction sites (Fontenot et al., 2013). This points to the detrimental effects of methane contamination in subsurface water. Therefore, natural gas use could be environmentally unsustainable. 

Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. J., ... & Karr, J. D. (2013). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110 (28), 11250-11255. 

The journal highlights the potential environmental effects of natural gas production in the United States. Methane was detected in 82% of drinking water samples, with average concentrations six times higher for homes <1 km from natural gas wells (Karr, 2013). This points to the detrimental effects of methane contamination in subsurface water. Therefore, natural gas use could be environmentally unsustainable. 

References 

Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2007). Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environmental science & technology , 41 (17), 6290-6296. 

Vaillant, S. R., & Gastec, A. S. (1999). Catalytic combustion in a domestic natural gas burner. Catalysis Today , 47 (1-4), 415-420. 

Burnham, A., Han, J., Clark, C. E., Wang, M., Dunn, J. B., & Palou-Rivera, I. (2011). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, natural gas, coal, and petroleum. Environmental science & technology , 46 (2), 619-627. 

Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change , 106 (4), 679. 

Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Comparative analysis of the production costs and life-cycle GHG emissions of FT liquid fuels from coal and natural gas. 

Economides, M. J., & Wood, D. A. (2009). The state of natural gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering , 1 (1-2), 1-13. 

Brkić, D., & Tanasković, T. I. (2008). Systematic approach to natural gas usage for domestic heating in urban areas. Energy , 33 (12), 1738-1753. 

Wang, Q., Chen, X., Jha, A. N., & Rogers, H. (2014). Natural gas from shale formation–the evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 30 , 1-28. 

Fontenot, B. E., Hunt, L. R., Hildenbrand, Z. L., Carlton Jr, D. D., Oka, H., Walton, J. L., ... & Schug, K. A. (2013). An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environmental Science & Technology , 47 (17), 10032-10040. 

Wang, Q., Chen, X., Jha, A. N., & Rogers, H. (2014). Natural gas from shale formation–the evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 30 , 1-28.