美國低成本天然氣再創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄

據(jù)4月12日福布斯報道，2019年，國際能源署執(zhí)行總監(jiān)法提赫·比羅爾博士說：“天然氣是全球能源的重要支柱之一，它改善了空氣質(zhì)量，限制了二氧化碳的排放。”

美國能源部的數(shù)據(jù)已經(jīng)公布，2019年是美國天然氣需求和市場化生產(chǎn)再創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的一年，分別約86 Bcf/d和100 Bcf/d。以天然氣為基礎(chǔ)的電力行業(yè)，該行業(yè)天然氣使用量占總量的35-37％，處于領(lǐng)先地位。

2019年，天然氣以31 Bcf / d的速度提供“電力發(fā)電”再創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄，比2014年上升40％。天然氣現(xiàn)在提供約40%的美國電力，以1,600 TWh的速度發(fā)電，使天然氣在電力行業(yè)的增長更加驚人的是，電力需求在10年內(nèi)一直保持穩(wěn)定，約為4050TWh。即使在綠色的加利福尼亞州——可再生能源地區(qū)的“領(lǐng)頭羊”，2019年天然氣供應(yīng)該州發(fā)電量也有42％（205 TWh中的85 TWh）——此數(shù)據(jù)已經(jīng)考慮到利用資金和政策來推動風(fēng)能和太陽能的發(fā)展。

自1月中旬以來，受疫情與冬季的影響，美國天然氣價格一直保持在2.00美元/ MMBtu以下。天然氣是一種低排放和清潔的燃料，如此低的價格顯然會刺激了更多的消費(fèi)者使用。美國能源部表示：“天然氣低價格和產(chǎn)能的增加推動了2020年第一季度的電力消耗增長?！?/span>

2019年美國有14,000兆瓦左右的燃煤發(fā)電已經(jīng)“退役”。由于夏季高溫常常致使風(fēng)力發(fā)電的可用性降低，而天然氣可以實(shí)現(xiàn)夏季不間斷發(fā)電。

展望未來，較低的溫室氣體排放量和能源更高靈活性將仍是美國電力系統(tǒng)不可或缺的一部分。

然而，正是這樣一個低成本的投資組合可能是天然氣最大的優(yōu)勢——意料之中地被忽略了。必須在各個方面強(qiáng)調(diào)低能耗，那是因為高達(dá)83％的美國經(jīng)濟(jì)增長可歸因于可支配收入——GDP驅(qū)動力，更高的電力成本會讓經(jīng)濟(jì)受到影響，因為電力是最終不可或缺的商品。

低價格天然氣能源或許一直是美國商業(yè)上最大的競爭優(yōu)勢。實(shí)際上，去年美國能源部還將美國經(jīng)濟(jì)免于衰退歸功于頁巖氣的繁榮。亨利中心天然氣基準(zhǔn)價格一直低于1.80美元，盡管2030年所有月度合同均低于2.80美元/ MMBtu。長期的低價將淹沒所的有競爭，包括可再生能源，而現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是美國低天然氣價格獲得了更多需求。相比之下，在2000-2008年前的頁巖氣時代，天然氣價格平均高于6.00美元。

從長期來看，天然氣價格低意料之中：美國能源部一直預(yù)測，在未來幾十年中，天然氣產(chǎn)量將超過天然氣需求1-2個百分點(diǎn)左右。值得慶幸的是，低成本的天然氣直接給了我們低成本的電力。正如美國能源部幾周前所解釋的：

“低電價與低天然氣價緊密相關(guān)……人們通常可以通過觀察天然氣價格變化來解釋當(dāng)前的電價。”

事實(shí)上，美國能源部將風(fēng)能和太陽能歸為“不可調(diào)度的技術(shù)”，這意味著通常無法部署，從而使它們與天然氣等可調(diào)度能源之間的成本相比存在根本缺陷。不幸的是，諸如可再生能源是需要建造遠(yuǎn)距離的高壓輸電線路，而這些通常是利用天然氣作為備用發(fā)電源，而可再生能源分析幾乎從未考慮到這些缺陷。

舒曉玲 摘譯自 福布斯

原文如下：

Another Record Year For Low-Cost U.S. Natural Gas - And Why That’s Good News

“Natural gas is one of the mainstays of global energy...it improves air quality and limits emissions of carbon dioxide,” Dr. Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency, 2019

I knew I was right. U.S. Department of Energy data is out and 2019 was another record year for U.S. natural gas demand and marketed production, respectively at ~86 Bcf/d and ~100 Bcf/d. For this post, let me focus on gas-based electricity, a sector that leads by accounting for 35-37% of our total gas use.

At 31 Bcf/d, gas “power burn” set another record in 2019, a 40% leap from 2014. At 1,600 TWh, gas now provides ~40% of U.S. electricity. What makes the rise of gas in the power sector even more amazing is the fact that our electricity demand has remained flat for a decade, at ~4,050 TWh. Even in green California, the renewable leader that has long done all that it can to “get off gas,” gas supplied 42% of the state’s generation in 2019 (85 TWh of 205 TWh) - extremely telling given how much money and policy has been deployed to force wind and solar.

Now, COVID-19 has combined with a very mild winter that has kept U.S. gas prices below $2.00/MMBtu since mid-January. Along with gas being a low-emission and cleaner fuel, such low prices obviously incentivize more use. The U.S. Department of Energy just reported our reality: “Low natural gas prices and capacity additions drive 2020 power burn growth in the first quarter.”

With some 14,000 MW of coal retirements in 2019, and since hotter temperatures often drive down the availability of wind power, I am calling summer again: “Nonstop Records For U.S. Natural-Gas-Based Electricity”- just like I did early last year.

Looking forward, the lower greenhouse gas emissions and higher flexibility that gas brings to will remain integral to the U.S. electric power system. After all, how did “Climate Week Completely Missed The Boat On Natural Gas.”

Yet, it is such a low-cost portfolio that is probably natural gas’ biggest advantage - unsurprisingly going underreported. Low energy costs must be stressed at all points by all of our leaders. That is because as much as 83% of U.S. economic growth can be attributed to disposable income - our GDP driver that higher electricity costs erode because electricity is the ultimate indispensable good (“it cannot not be used”).

Even more vital for our leaders to understand, higher energy costs are dangerously regressive, hurting the most vulnerable the most. Low-income Americans spend three to seven times more of their incomes on heating, electricity, and transportation than do high-income Americans. This is particularly devastating for our African-American and Hispanic communities, where poverty rates are substantially higher (Figure).

Cheap energy from natural gas (and oil) has been perhaps our country’s greatest competitive edge for business. In fact, just last year the U.S. Department of Energy credited the shale gas boom as saving America from a recession. The Henry Hub gas benchmark price has been below $1.80, and all monthly contracts though 2030 below ~$2.80 per MMBtu. These are insanely low long-term prices that will swamp out all competition including renewables. And the reality is that “Low U.S. Natural Gas Prices Lock In More Demand.” For comparison, in the pre-shale era 2000-2008, gas prices averaged above $6.00.

Low gas prices over the long-term surely comes as no surprise: the U.S. Department of Energy has consistently forecast our new gas production outpacing our new gas demand by about a 2-1 margin for decades to come. Thankfully, low-cost gas has directly handed us low-cost electricity. As explained by the U.S. Department of Energy just a few weeks ago:

“Wholesale electricity prices are closely tied to wholesale natural gas prices...one can often explain current wholesale electricity prices by looking at what is happening with natural gas prices.”

Finally, the truth is that the U.S. Department of Energy classifies wind and solar as “non-dispatchable technologies.” This means that they are typically unavailable for deployment, thereby making cost comparisons between them and dispatchable systems like natural gas fundamentally flawed. And unfortunately, such as the real-life needs for renewables to have more long distance, high-voltage transmission lines built, along with their need for a backup generating source that usually comes from gas, certain short-comings for renewables are almost never factored into these analyses.