Prospects for Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas in a Carbon-Constrained World: A Preliminary Analysis
- 1 Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Using a regionally disaggregated global energy system model with a detailed treatment of the natural gas resource base, this paper analyzes the competitiveness of coalbed methane and shale gas in the global primary energy mix and the cost-optimal pattern of their production in regional detail over the period 2010-2050 under a constraint of halving global energy-related CO 2 emissions in 2050 compared to the 2000 level. It is first shown that neither coalbed methane nor shale gas could become an important fuel in the global primary energy mix throughout the time horizon, although each of them could become an important source of world natural gas production from around 2030 onwards. It is then shown that unlike findings of previous studies, coalbed methane would be more attractive than shale gas as a primary energy source globally under the CO 2 constraint used here. The results indicate that North America continues to be the world’s largest coalbed methane producer until 2030, after which China overtakes North America and retains this position until 2050. Also, India, Russia, South Africa, and Australia contribute noticeably to world coalbed methane production. The results also indicate that North America continues to dominate world shale gas production until 2040, after which a number of world regions, notably India, Europe, and China, begin to participate visibly in world shale gas production.
- IEA, “World Energy Outlook 2011 Special Report: Are We Entering A Golden Age of Gas?” IEA, Paris, 2011.
- T. Takeshita and K. Yamaji, “Important Roles of Fischer-Tropsch Synfuels in the Global Energy Future,” Energy Policy, Vol. 36, No. 8, 2008, pp. 2791-2802. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.044
- T. Takeshita, “Assessing the Co-Benefits of CO 2 Mitigation on Air Pollutants Emissions from Road Vehicles,” Applied Energy, Vol. 97, 2012, pp. 225-237. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.029
- B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., “Climate Change 2007: Mitigation,” Contribution of Working Group III to the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007.
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, “GGI Scenario Database,” 2007. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/GGI/DB/
- H.-H. Rogner, “Energy Resources and Potentials,” In: T. B. Johansson, A. Patwardhan, N. Nakicenovic and L. G. Echeverri, Eds., Global Energy Assessment, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2012, pp. 425-512.
- Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, “Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand,” OECD, Paris, 2002.
- M. Hoogwijk and W. Graus, “Global Potential of Renewable Energy Sources: A Literature Assessment,” ECOFYS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2008.
- W. Turkenburg, “Renewable Energy,” In: T. B. Johansson, A. Patwardhan, N. Nakicenovic and L. G. Echeverri, Eds., Global Energy Assessment, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2012, pp. 761-900.
- T. Takeshita, “A Strategy for Introducing Modern Bioenergy into Developing Asia to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change,” Applied Energy, Vol. 86, 2009, pp. S222-S232. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.023
- BGR, “Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources 2010,” BGR, Hannover, Germany, 2010.
- Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth, “Study Project for Implementation Planning of the New Earth Program,” New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo, 2002.
- IPCC, “Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
- US Geological Survey (USGS), “USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000: Description and Results,” USGS, Washington DC, 2000.