Afraid of Natural Gas Job
August 9, 2011 12:06 PM Subscribe
I've accepted a role with a utility that distributes natural gas (not fracked). I'm plagued by doubt. I need information on the industry and advice on how to proceed next.
I'm scared. I quit a job I loved (but that had low pay, little growth opportunity and looming layoffs) after accepting an ostensibly great job in a good department at the local utility company. I'll be focused on natural gas.
I'm terrified that I just made a huge mistake: I accepted this job knowing relatively little about natural gas, and I'm now being inundated by the onslaught of anti-natural-gas info. I haven't even started yet, and I think I regret my decision.
NOTE: Not using fracked gas. (Phew.)
If you can, please provide me with information on the benefits of natural gas. Alternately, please provide me with anecdotes from people who work in the natural gas industry and are happy in their job. I'm afraid I've made a huge mistake and that I'm now A Bad Guy.
I'm scared. I quit a job I loved (but that had low pay, little growth opportunity and looming layoffs) after accepting an ostensibly great job in a good department at the local utility company. I'll be focused on natural gas.
I'm terrified that I just made a huge mistake: I accepted this job knowing relatively little about natural gas, and I'm now being inundated by the onslaught of anti-natural-gas info. I haven't even started yet, and I think I regret my decision.
NOTE: Not using fracked gas. (Phew.)
If you can, please provide me with information on the benefits of natural gas. Alternately, please provide me with anecdotes from people who work in the natural gas industry and are happy in their job. I'm afraid I've made a huge mistake and that I'm now A Bad Guy.
Everything is a spectrum, none of us here is a naked spear-fisher that uses no power. We all use power in the first world, almost always largely from non-renewables. Natural gas is generally cleaner, more efficient, and less destructive to mine than, say, coal (a huge part of our power supply), for instance.
I had an argument once with a friend that worked for industry when I was young. I said he worked for the bad guys. He pointed out that I was eating chips and salsa that came in plastic bags, and that I consumed industrial goods (and power) All. The. Time. Isn't it better, he asked, to have someone work for industry who cares about efficiency and the environment, trying to be sure they're making those goods in the best possible ways, if we're all using those products?
If you're currently using power, it only makes sense that you'd be willing to work on making sure it's used efficiently, right? Unless your job is to make sure people Waste natural gas, you are NOT a Bad Guy. Use your powers (and new income!) for good, young jedi!
posted by ldthomps at 12:34 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
I had an argument once with a friend that worked for industry when I was young. I said he worked for the bad guys. He pointed out that I was eating chips and salsa that came in plastic bags, and that I consumed industrial goods (and power) All. The. Time. Isn't it better, he asked, to have someone work for industry who cares about efficiency and the environment, trying to be sure they're making those goods in the best possible ways, if we're all using those products?
If you're currently using power, it only makes sense that you'd be willing to work on making sure it's used efficiently, right? Unless your job is to make sure people Waste natural gas, you are NOT a Bad Guy. Use your powers (and new income!) for good, young jedi!
posted by ldthomps at 12:34 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you can, please provide me with information on the benefits of natural gas.
Well, it heats my house in the winter.
I'm not being glib. I think the way for you to look at this is that a utility provides a much-needed service. It is generally highly regulated, and an infrastructure has grown around it that gives it societal value.
I suspect you're concerned about high-level policy issues like the environment. While those might be real issues that need to be debated by policy makers and regulators over the coming decades, there's nothing "bad" about providing services that millions of people rely upon. In fact, you could argue the opposite.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:40 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, it heats my house in the winter.
I'm not being glib. I think the way for you to look at this is that a utility provides a much-needed service. It is generally highly regulated, and an infrastructure has grown around it that gives it societal value.
I suspect you're concerned about high-level policy issues like the environment. While those might be real issues that need to be debated by policy makers and regulators over the coming decades, there's nothing "bad" about providing services that millions of people rely upon. In fact, you could argue the opposite.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:40 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
The alternatives to natural gas for heating and cooking are electricity (mostly from coal) and oil.
Electricity is terribly inefficient due to transmission and generation losses; you're lucky if 2/3rds of the power you send out actually gets to the consumer. If it comes from coal-fired power plants, you're also sending tons of particulates and nasty gases into the air.
Heating oil is somewhat more efficient than electricity, but has even worse pollution problems. Using natural gas instead of heating oil means kids aren't getting cancer from playing in their back yards. You're saving lives!
Finally, natural gas is great for powering small generators that fill in when electricity demand is greater than the supply from fixed plants. That means we need fewer fixed plants, and can have more variable sources of electricity like wind and solar attached to the grid. It's also a bit less polluting than the coal it's replacing, though of course it's far more expensive.
As an environmentalist, I'd say you're doing great work!
posted by miyabo at 12:51 PM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Electricity is terribly inefficient due to transmission and generation losses; you're lucky if 2/3rds of the power you send out actually gets to the consumer. If it comes from coal-fired power plants, you're also sending tons of particulates and nasty gases into the air.
Heating oil is somewhat more efficient than electricity, but has even worse pollution problems. Using natural gas instead of heating oil means kids aren't getting cancer from playing in their back yards. You're saving lives!
Finally, natural gas is great for powering small generators that fill in when electricity demand is greater than the supply from fixed plants. That means we need fewer fixed plants, and can have more variable sources of electricity like wind and solar attached to the grid. It's also a bit less polluting than the coal it's replacing, though of course it's far more expensive.
As an environmentalist, I'd say you're doing great work!
posted by miyabo at 12:51 PM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Eh, it's a relative thing. Here are four reasons why you don't have to feel that bad about natural gas:
1. Gas heaters and cookers are way more efficient than electric ones, thermodynamically speaking. Even if electricity comes from natural gas plants, you lose a lot on the conversion to electricity and back to heat. For most jurisdictions you will reduce emissions by using natural gas at home, until such time as the electricity grid eventually becomes very low-carbon. (The exception is places like BC, my home, where the grid is hydroelectricity; there is not much to say for gas here.)
2. While natural gas does release greenhouse gases, it's way better than coal. Replacing coal electricity with gas electricity is a win. Large-scale renewables are not ready to take the full burden of electricity generation yet, so gas can be one stage in the transition.
3. Gas plants are flexible; they can be fired up to add capacity during peak loads, and then switched off. Here in BC we have a gas plant that is idle almost all the time, but is used for "planning purposes" and thus allows the utility to satisfy regulations for the amount of capacity they are required to have available. Without this plant, we would have to build more dams to make sure we have the capability to meet peak surges. Having this plant available saves the ratepayers significant amounts of money.
4. Any system needs a strong base capacity which will either be coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro, with intermittent renewables add on top of that. None of these choices are ideal and all face opposition, but without them rates would be too high. When faced with the problem of base load, gas can be an attractive choice. Gas plants scale really easily as it's pretty simple to add another burner. You can build tiny ones for small communities or huge ones for big cities. They are relatively compact and can be built anywhere, unlike renewables or hydro, and they are more socially acceptable than either coal or nuclear. I personally would rather see hydro and nuclear take the base loads (and then eventually biofuels, large-scale solar, geothermal, etc, once these become affordable), but gas has a role to play in the short term for sure.
posted by PercussivePaul at 12:57 PM on August 9, 2011
1. Gas heaters and cookers are way more efficient than electric ones, thermodynamically speaking. Even if electricity comes from natural gas plants, you lose a lot on the conversion to electricity and back to heat. For most jurisdictions you will reduce emissions by using natural gas at home, until such time as the electricity grid eventually becomes very low-carbon. (The exception is places like BC, my home, where the grid is hydroelectricity; there is not much to say for gas here.)
2. While natural gas does release greenhouse gases, it's way better than coal. Replacing coal electricity with gas electricity is a win. Large-scale renewables are not ready to take the full burden of electricity generation yet, so gas can be one stage in the transition.
3. Gas plants are flexible; they can be fired up to add capacity during peak loads, and then switched off. Here in BC we have a gas plant that is idle almost all the time, but is used for "planning purposes" and thus allows the utility to satisfy regulations for the amount of capacity they are required to have available. Without this plant, we would have to build more dams to make sure we have the capability to meet peak surges. Having this plant available saves the ratepayers significant amounts of money.
4. Any system needs a strong base capacity which will either be coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro, with intermittent renewables add on top of that. None of these choices are ideal and all face opposition, but without them rates would be too high. When faced with the problem of base load, gas can be an attractive choice. Gas plants scale really easily as it's pretty simple to add another burner. You can build tiny ones for small communities or huge ones for big cities. They are relatively compact and can be built anywhere, unlike renewables or hydro, and they are more socially acceptable than either coal or nuclear. I personally would rather see hydro and nuclear take the base loads (and then eventually biofuels, large-scale solar, geothermal, etc, once these become affordable), but gas has a role to play in the short term for sure.
posted by PercussivePaul at 12:57 PM on August 9, 2011
Natural gas is the most efficient and least polluting fossil fuel. Sure chemical fracking can cause damage and contamination, but have you seen what happens in mountain-top removal mining? Coal power stations produce thousands of tonnes of sludgy toxic ash as a waste product.
posted by atrazine at 12:59 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by atrazine at 12:59 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Perhaps you should balance out your reading. For instance, your stated relief at not using gas from hydraulically fractured wells. I have some bad news for you: this is almost certainly not true. Your utility may not be getting gas from shale gas wells, but almost all wells are stimulated during completions to a greater or lesser degree. The exceptions would be captured associated gas from oilfields, or captured biogas from landfills and so on. But it is also possible that the environmental concerns surrounding fracking are misplaced. In my opinion, of the long list of impacts surrounding shale gas development, fracking is actually quite far down on the list. But certainly that's the aspect that's captured the public's attention. Many of these impacts are also involved in conventional gas production and delivery: fragmentation of habitat by well roads and pipelines, pipeline explosions, H2S emissions from well heads and pipelines, CO2 emissions from upstream and midstream operations as well as combustion, footprint of distribution systems, etc.
The good news is that natural gas is a clean burning hydrocarbon: in a modern high E furnace or generator, the only combustion byproducts are CO2 and H20. As far as CO2 goes, the carbon intensity of gas is much lower than coal (which gas displaces in electrical generation) or oil (which gas displaces for space heating and CNG vehicles). It has been called a 'bridge fuel' -- between our overwhelming reliance on oil and coal, and some future energy system based on low carbon intensity renewables. The claim has been made that, because of the design of gas fired electrical generating turbines, gas is the ideal partner to intermittent renewables.
Some (really first rate) links:
The Future of Natural Gas, report from a multi-year, multi-discplinary MIT study.
Is Natural Gas a Climate Change Solution for Canaday", published by the Pembina Institute, Canada's highest profile energy and environment advocacy and research organization.
posted by bumpkin at 1:00 PM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
The good news is that natural gas is a clean burning hydrocarbon: in a modern high E furnace or generator, the only combustion byproducts are CO2 and H20. As far as CO2 goes, the carbon intensity of gas is much lower than coal (which gas displaces in electrical generation) or oil (which gas displaces for space heating and CNG vehicles). It has been called a 'bridge fuel' -- between our overwhelming reliance on oil and coal, and some future energy system based on low carbon intensity renewables. The claim has been made that, because of the design of gas fired electrical generating turbines, gas is the ideal partner to intermittent renewables.
Some (really first rate) links:
The Future of Natural Gas, report from a multi-year, multi-discplinary MIT study.
Is Natural Gas a Climate Change Solution for Canaday", published by the Pembina Institute, Canada's highest profile energy and environment advocacy and research organization.
posted by bumpkin at 1:00 PM on August 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oh I forgot oil plants (petroleum). Another fossil-electricity alternative to coal and gas, but gas remains the cleanest.
posted by PercussivePaul at 1:05 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by PercussivePaul at 1:05 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also, about the making peace with being a peon of the Evil Empire. I think about this almost daily. My main obsessions are energy policy, history of energy use, sustainability, economics of environmental externalities, the prospects of serious climate disruptions, etc. etc. And yet, I work for the energy company that the random person will usually name, when needing a stand-in for "giant evil megacorp". There a conflicting currents, here are some consolation thoughts, when the conscience is getting clouded:
1) The job isn't you. If you're concerned about environmental impact, you can still adjust your consumption and behaviour, buy carbon credits, contribute time and energy to local and national environmental orgs, contribute and vote to political campaigns in lines with your values, donate to environmental advocay groups or the Nature Conservancy.
2) The job isn't forever. You can pick up skills and experience and knowledge within that environment that will make you a more effective person in your next job, which may be less problematic or even radically opposite to your current employer.
3) Depending on your position, you might find yourself in a position to make a positive difference within the corporate beast. This is the least realistic of the three consoling thoughts -- you really need to rise to a very senior level for big change and corporate structure selects for personalities and motivations that are antithetical to this.
(I also have other mitigating thoughts, that are particular to my job, background and aspirations).
posted by bumpkin at 1:25 PM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
1) The job isn't you. If you're concerned about environmental impact, you can still adjust your consumption and behaviour, buy carbon credits, contribute time and energy to local and national environmental orgs, contribute and vote to political campaigns in lines with your values, donate to environmental advocay groups or the Nature Conservancy.
2) The job isn't forever. You can pick up skills and experience and knowledge within that environment that will make you a more effective person in your next job, which may be less problematic or even radically opposite to your current employer.
3) Depending on your position, you might find yourself in a position to make a positive difference within the corporate beast. This is the least realistic of the three consoling thoughts -- you really need to rise to a very senior level for big change and corporate structure selects for personalities and motivations that are antithetical to this.
(I also have other mitigating thoughts, that are particular to my job, background and aspirations).
posted by bumpkin at 1:25 PM on August 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
I work for a mining company. Not coal - I'd avoid that for similar reasons that have caused this question - but it's something that I've spent a lot of time considering, doubting, and defending.
Most first world people are entirely disconnected from the things that provide them with their material comforts. Most people never ponder the fact that every single piece of metal they use was once in a rock, underground, and has been mined out and processed so that they could have their bikes and cutlery and electronics and saucepans. Similarly, most people (myself included) turn on their lights without thinking about what generates the electricity that allows them to do it.
Due to this, it's very easy to be anti-mining or anti-fossil fuel in principle. What I think is more productive is less of a complete 'NO MINING' mentality (really? You don't want us to EVER use metal?) and more of a 'no more bad mining' approach. I'm as dead-set against strip mining, and acid mine drainage, and pollution, as most fervent anti-miners. What's different is that I think it's possible to operate a mine safely and with limited environmental damage, and that a more productive position is one that supports the companies that lead the way environmentally.
In your case, I think you should make sure that the company you are about to work for adheres to strict environmental standards and is actively engaged in improving the industry, and then you should be proud that you're actively choosing to support such a company. Discussing this with the critics is a good way to ensure you haven't been 'turned' by the industry, and also might offer them a new point of view.
posted by twirlypen at 4:11 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Most first world people are entirely disconnected from the things that provide them with their material comforts. Most people never ponder the fact that every single piece of metal they use was once in a rock, underground, and has been mined out and processed so that they could have their bikes and cutlery and electronics and saucepans. Similarly, most people (myself included) turn on their lights without thinking about what generates the electricity that allows them to do it.
Due to this, it's very easy to be anti-mining or anti-fossil fuel in principle. What I think is more productive is less of a complete 'NO MINING' mentality (really? You don't want us to EVER use metal?) and more of a 'no more bad mining' approach. I'm as dead-set against strip mining, and acid mine drainage, and pollution, as most fervent anti-miners. What's different is that I think it's possible to operate a mine safely and with limited environmental damage, and that a more productive position is one that supports the companies that lead the way environmentally.
In your case, I think you should make sure that the company you are about to work for adheres to strict environmental standards and is actively engaged in improving the industry, and then you should be proud that you're actively choosing to support such a company. Discussing this with the critics is a good way to ensure you haven't been 'turned' by the industry, and also might offer them a new point of view.
posted by twirlypen at 4:11 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Natural gas is the best available transition fuel on our inevitable path from fossil fuels to fully renewable energy. Obviously it is still a fossil fuel, and releasing it from underground sequestration is going to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; but burning it emits less carbon per unit of delivered energy than any other fossil fuel while allowing the use of familiar, widely-deployed technologies, extracting it causes less environmental damage than extraction of either coal or oil, and using it doesn't require anything even close to the level of long-term capital commitment involved with nuclear energy.
Given the present state of the industrial ecology and the ways it's likely to change in the short to medium term, direct displacement of coal and oil with natural gas is among the most cost-effective greenhouse gas emission abatement measures available.
posted by flabdablet at 5:19 PM on August 9, 2011
Given the present state of the industrial ecology and the ways it's likely to change in the short to medium term, direct displacement of coal and oil with natural gas is among the most cost-effective greenhouse gas emission abatement measures available.
posted by flabdablet at 5:19 PM on August 9, 2011
I've worked for energy (oil and gas) companies for many years now. Here's something that you might not know: There are employees of energy companies who are environmentalists, who are concerned about our increased dependence on petroleum products, who are interested in alternative sources of energy. The industry is just a group of regular humans, some who think one way and other who think another way -- just like everywhere. You won't be alone, and you'll get to meet and talk with people who understand the issues probably better than you would ever imagine.
posted by Houstonian at 7:33 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Houstonian at 7:33 PM on August 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
'Canaday'
I took that for intentional Canadian self mockery, adding the cliche 'ay' on the end of your country's name.
posted by compound eye at 11:41 PM on August 9, 2011
I took that for intentional Canadian self mockery, adding the cliche 'ay' on the end of your country's name.
posted by compound eye at 11:41 PM on August 9, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by blargerz at 12:25 PM on August 9, 2011