The year 2017 has seen new heights of the economy, and in the pandemonium, some experts believe that Natural Gas has taken a backseat in the plan for the future. A few experts affirm the possibility of Natural Gas not being a contender, and the repercussions for the economy of many nations and states are evident.
According to sources, the indicators include the closure of Siemens and GE’s gas turbine-making capacities. It was reported that Siemens, the European champion of the electric power revolution, which had a capacity to make 400 100MW gas turbines annually, laid-off 7,000 workers. Meanwhile, GE also laid-off 20,000 workers in its gas-related business. These announcements allegedly coincide with South Australia turning on a 100-megawatt battery that had been built in around 100 days by Telsa and a consortium. The parity is that if a large-scale storage around 100MW scale could be built in less than six months economically, then the market for gas turbines to provide peaking services would be at considerable risk.
Meanwhile, in November 2017, the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, derived from hydrocarbon riches and one of the world’s largest pools of capital, reportedly proposed to stop investing in oil and gas. And, later the World Bank announced that it would stall financing of upstream oil and gas projects. Also, there have been strong signals in California from key buyers that they would want to move away from natural gas.
In the context, the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission have stated that they would not need natural gas in their toolkit anymore. The consensus is concerning for long-term gas sellers. Meanwhile, the emerging plan in California is projected towards a fully renewable energy supply and the electrification of everything.
The reality as stated by a few sources is that natural gas would no longer be essential in the electricity grids of California and other states. In conclusion, 2017 has been a year to reflect on the developments of the gas industry.