scholarly journals Implications of changing natural gas prices in the United States electricity sector for SO 2 , NO X and life cycle GHG emissions

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 034018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aranya Venkatesh ◽  
Paulina Jaramillo ◽  
W Michael Griffin ◽  
H Scott Matthews
2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (11) ◽  
pp. 1879-1894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl J. Schreck ◽  
Stephen Bennett ◽  
Jason M. Cordeira ◽  
Jake Crouch ◽  
Jenny Dissen ◽  
...  

Abstract Day-to-day volatility in natural gas markets is driven largely by variability in heating demand, which is in turn dominated by cool-season temperature anomalies over the northeastern quadrant of the United States (“Midwest–East”). Energy traders rely on temperature forecasts at horizons of 2–4 weeks to anticipate those fluctuations in demand. Forecasts from dynamical models are widely available, so the markets react quickly to changes in the model predictions. Traders often work with meteorologists who leverage teleconnections from the tropics and the Arctic to improve upon the model forecasts. This study demonstrates how natural gas prices react to Midwest–East temperatures using the anomalous winters of 2011/12 and 2013/14. These examples also illustrate how energy meteorologists use teleconnections from the Arctic and the tropics to forecast heating demand. Winter 2011/12 was exceptionally warm, consistent with the positive Arctic Oscillation (AO). March 2012 was a fitting exclamation point on the winter as it featured the largest warm anomaly for the United States above the twentieth-century climatology of any month since 1895. The resulting lack of heating demand led to record surpluses of natural gas storage and spurred prices downward to an 11-yr low in April 2012. In sharp contrast, winter 2013/14 was unusually cold. An anomalous Alaskan ridge led to cold air being transported from Siberia into the United States, despite the AO generally being positive. The ensuing swell in heating demand exhausted the surplus natural gas inventory, and prices rose to their highest levels since the beginning of the global recession in 2008.


Significance US natural gas prices have surged over the past six weeks thanks to falling supply, strong demand from the power sector and rising exports. The uptick in prices has provided a glimmer of hope to gas producers in the United States, hard hit by a prolonged slump in prices. Impacts Declining gas production and rising demand will mean increased pipeline imports from Canada over the coming months. Mexico will pay higher prices for US natural gas imports as the Henry Hub benchmark, potentially hitting demand. US producers that have more gas-producing assets in their portfolio will benefit from rising prices.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selina Roman-White ◽  
Srijana Rai ◽  
James Littlefield ◽  
Greg Cooney ◽  
Timothy J Skone

Author(s):  
Fan Yang ◽  
Chris Yuan ◽  
Xiang Zhao

The use of electric vehicle (EV) has been widely recognized as an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation sector. However, the geographic difference of GHG emission reduction from EV deployment is seldom explored. This paper presents a study on the total GHG emissions generated from the life cycle of an EV (represented by Nissan Leaf) and an internal combustion vehicle (ICV) (represented by Toyota Corolla) for benchmarking on the potential emission reductions in the United States. The differences of electricity mix and driving style in each state are considered in the analysis. The results indicate a 43% GHG emissions reduction from ICV with the deployment of EV under the current average United States’ electricity generation scheme and transportation style. But the life cycle GHG emission reductions vary significantly from state to state in the U.S. Some states such as Indiana, Wyoming and West Virginia can only get 7237, 9501 and 9860 kg CO2 equivalent reduced, while some states such as Vermont, New Jersey and Idaho can get 57915, 57206 and 49039 kg CO2 equivalent GHG emissions reduced. This study can be useful in supporting future decision-making and strategy development for EV deployment in the U.S.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 118002
Author(s):  
Melissa J Scully ◽  
Gregory A Norris ◽  
Tania M Alarcon Falconi ◽  
David L MacIntosh

Abstract Spawn-Lee et al published a comment on our recent paper, ‘Carbon intensity of corn ethanol in the United States: state of the science.’ Their commentary is critical of our methodology and conclusions regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) life cycle analyses (LCAs) for corn starch ethanol and gives particular attention to the estimation of emissions from land use change (LUC). Several of the concerns stated by Spawn-Lee et al were raised in prior publications and are addressed in the recently published literature, thus, we respond to those points in brief and refer readers to those papers for more information. In response to their remaining concerns, we present detailed information in support of our approach for assessing LCAs of corn starch ethanol and our findings. Our original paper and the corroborating information provided here demonstrate that our methods are robust and our results are credible. Further, we hope this response contributes to constructive discussion and research on estimation of GHG emissions and LUC linked to corn starch ethanol.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Skone ◽  
Gregory Cooney ◽  
Matthew Jamieson ◽  
James Littlefield ◽  
Joe Marriott

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document