As of 2023, Australia is the world's second largest LNG exporter (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-expor...) after the US (take that Russia!) and ahead of Qatar. Great for the gas exporting cartel but not so great for ordinary Australians in eastern states who now pay the same for gas as people in Tokyo. (And Aussies wonder why manufacturers keep leaving...)
Banning domestic gas usage for new homes (which the fools running Victoria, the state I live in, have done) will do nothing for emissions but will mean that the gas cartel can make even more money exporting LNG to Asia. Bravo!
The exception is Western Australia which is also a massive LNG exporter but has stricter domestic reservation requirements than the eastern states.
All of the above has been extensively documented at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/ (source: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww....).
How can that be?
Direct consumption emissions are eliminated.
Those with solar (a growing percentage) reduce their indirect emissions from grid non-renewable generators.
And there is a growing percentage of green generation on the grid.
Because a reduction of domestic gas usage will just be diverted to less efficient LNG exports.
Given that by far the largest source of Victoria's electricity generation capacity is from dirty brown coal [1] if anything banning domestic gas usage might even make emissions worse since it will force people to use only electricity for cooking and heating.
> Direct consumption emissions are eliminated.
Ah, so burning Aussie natural gas in Asia (after it's been liquified and then turned back into gas) is somehow better for the environment than just burning it in Australia?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Victoria#Electricity...
The biggest pushers of no domestic gas are the producers and finance guys. They make a lot more money on exports.
It doesn't impact commercial use of LNG, or the extraction or export of LNG.
We are also not talking about ripping out the existing install base of appliances.
It will take at least a decade or two for that switch to reach a critical mass. That's the point when it becomes uneconomic to continue operating the domestic piped LNG network in Victoria.
If it displaces burning coal in Asia, maybe it is? https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14670874
Indeed, if you look at the three Brown Coal generators in Victoria[1], Yallorn is due to shut down in 2028 taking ~30% (1480MW) of that away, followed by Loy Yang A in 2035 which will take another ~40% (2200MW) of that capacity.
So, banning new LNG appliances now, and starting that migration will have a net positive impact.
This is true even if the LNG continues to be burned overseas if it's replacing coal fired generation capacity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stati...
Finance for domestic infra is harder to get because no one wants to be locked into 20 year supply arrangements.
The Japanese were, and that's what paid for Gladstone, and that's why for a period, Australian ng was cheaper in Japan than on-shore.
(Personally, I think all countries, to the extent that they can, ought to both reduce domestic fossil fuel use and at the same time impose strict limits on its export. We're all better off if it just stays in the ground.)
It would only be fair to say it was artifically cheap, say, if the Australian government was imposing tariffs or subsidising production. I don't think it was doing that, and as it was, the producers were sufficiently incentivised by the market to produce and sell gas domestically.
A tech shock doesn't mean the old status quo was inefficient.
E.g., conventional mail wasn't inefficient prior to email
What?
You are missing the point. We're talking about "markets" not the specific "tech/substitutes." It could be any technology disruption. Such disruption doesn't mean the prior status quo IN THE MARKET was inefficient. The tech shock just resets equilibrium.
Further, your explanation is circular, and I propose it has to do with muddling terminology and concepts.
Here's one inconsistency. Either the markets didn't exist (You said they need to be "created."), or they did exist, but a pipeline connecting them was too expensive.
> Technology literally created additional markets
> it would have been possible to pipeline gas from AU to markets across the ocean, but it didn’t make economic sense
Higher gas prices is good for fighting climate change - it makes renewable energy more competitive. Now, is the opposite the case for, say the Japanese, who import gas from Australia? Are they less incentivized to switch away? Probably somewhat, but less so, because of transaction and transportation costs.
Anyway, Australia has no excuse for not using solar energy. Which is exactly what they are doing over there despite conservative governments trying to slow that down for the last decade or so. I doesn't need to depend on fossil fuels.
In the US natural gas is a byproduct of shale oil extraction and we have a limited capacity to move or export it so it's almost priced as a waste product.
It's unlikely that electricity will be any cheaper than gas soon either, since that's where 40% (and growing, as our coal and nuclear fleet are retired) of our electricity comes from.
Does that include transmission? Most population centers already have the pipeline network needed to bring them gas but the getting power from giant solar projects in the desert (where it's sunny) to the eastern interconnection (where most people live) is still an unmet need.
> as battery storage prices drop
Eventually, but at present our grid-scale storage has a capacity of ~30GW on a grid of ~1200GW; it's going to take something like a trillion dollars and a generation to build out grid-scale storage to the point where we can even support a 100% renewable grid.
We'll get there eventually but until grid-scale storage is installed and ready, the gas plants (with their fast start/stop ability) are what's enabling the renewables to come online and replace our older coal and nuke plants.
We're probably going to have to lean even more on gas since the first ~500GW of renewables are replacing existing coal/nuclear we're losing, but once the grid storage tech catches up we can start installing that in lieu of new gas plants and replacing the ones we've already built.
Tl;dr: we'll get there but not in the lifetime of a furnace
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/imports-and-...
In 2022 the US imported 3 trillion CF, exported 6.9 trillion cubic feet, and extracted 43.8 trillion CF.
By comparison in 2015 we only exported 1.8 trillion CF.
If shipping makes it an order of magnitude more expensive, then there is no global price.
Large (not ultra large) oil tankers might carry 200,000 tonnes and consume 25 ton of heavy bunker fuel per day.
LNG gas carriers equally have their own stats.
This is something you can (or at the very least should be able to) back of envelope estimate ...
https://www.planete-energies.com/en/media/article/transporti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA9...
Now you just need mean trip times, profit margin, etc. and you're away.
Order of magnitude addition to costs, though, sounds a little extreme.
True but it was turned off some time before that happened
Of course there is a global market for all fossil fuels.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-was-top-lng-expor....
I'm sorry, but how does that make any sense, when 47% of the electricity production in Australia comes from coal?? They are banning a system that is actually pretty efficient at making heat, to instead use a low efficiency coal power plant, to produce electricity, to then use in heat pumps to produce heat. Simply, wow.
https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-stat...
The price has certainly come down (look at henry hub chart..), but also winter has not been too cold..
They should ban oil exports next.. (for "national security")
Actually export tariffs would be better than outright bans.
IIRC Gas extraction has an extremely high EROI (30x) initially, making it a highly productive extractive resource. But each gas well has a productive lifespan of approx 7 years requiring constant activity to sustain development.