How Much Does 1 Cubic Meter Of Natural Gas Cost?

Cubic meters are a volume measurement unit. 35.315 cubic feet of natural gas equals 1 m3 of natural gas. BTU = BTU = BTU = BTU = BTU = BTU = B

What is the price of a cubic meter of LNG?

A old employer with whom I worked in Canada and Brazil recently contacted me with a question about a Wall Street Journal article he’d seen about a proposed Namibia project to create green hydrogen and send it to industrialized countries. He was unsure if this was financially feasible. Of course, it isn’t, but it provided me with an excuse to finally do the math.

The best parallel is liquid natural gas (LNG), which requires liquification, which uses roughly 10% of the energy embodied in LNG and marine shipping. The largest LNG tanker I’m aware of is a Wartsila Q-Max, which carries 266,000 cubic meters of LNG. The liquefied gas is inexpensive, with average delivered import rates in the United States of $109 per cubic meter of LNG, or about $0.18 per cubic meter of natural gas, though prices are expected to spike globally in late 2021. Before the latest price surges, those 266,000 cubic meters were worth almost $29 million.

The first thing to remember is that while hydrogen has a high energy density by mass, it does not have a high energy density by volume. The supplied BTUs of energy would be around 27% of the LNG, assuming the same-sized ship. This is due to the fact that, even liquified, hydrogen has less energy by volume than LNG, as well as the fact that liquifying hydrogen uses around 33% of the energy in the liquified hydrogen, against the 10% required for LNG. Different gases necessitate different temperatures for liquification. Liquid oxygen is amazing for space flight, but not so good for anything less demanding.

The second issue is that hydrogen is expensive on its own. Using the best case scenario from Lazard’s hydrogen LCOE, hydrogen is expected to cost $0.78 per kilogram with dirt cheap electrolyzers, $10 per MWh power, and 100 percent capacity factors. These figures are as unlikely as unicorns arriving all over the planet and giving youngsters free rides. The weight of a cubic meter of liquified hydrogen is 71 kg. That means the delivered price of liquified hydrogen would be 1.9 times higher than the delivered price of LNG, minus the energy expenses of liquification and putting it onto the ship. And that delivered price includes long-distance ocean travels, with daily LNG ship charter expenses averaging $150,000 per day, spiking at over $200,000 per day in January 2021 and reaching a high of $350,000 per day. There’s a little more on the cost of a cubic meter of liquid hydrogen for liquification, but it’s not much, approximately another dollar per cubic meter, since we’re presuming that energy costs $10 per MWh.

The typical cruise duration is currently around 23 days, excluding loading and unloading periods, with pre-berthing, loading, and unloading adding another 4-5 days. It will cost an extra $4.2 million if it is referred to as 28 days.

This increases the overall cost of the given hydrogen to around $19 million, or around 27% of the total energy delivered. Given that the persons doing this want to make a profit, assuming a 10% profit margin, the total delivery price for the load will be in the area of $21 million.

In the best-case scenario, this means the price per delivered unit of energy is nearly 5 times that of liquid natural gas.

More accurate calculations from Lazard’s LCOE would be 40% more expensive, roughly 7x the price of LNG per unit of energy, with still low $20/MWh electricity, still high 90% capacity factors, and more realistically priced but still inexpensive electrolyzers. When you do the arithmetic with the numbers that favor hydrogen, it becomes clear how poor the economics of using it for energy are.

This is, of course, before the liquid hydrogen is transformed to usable energy at a maximum efficiency of 60%, which is comparable to a good combined cycle gas turbine.

What does all of this mean for Namibia’s actual sunshine? Take 20% off for electrolysis, 33% off for liquification, 10% off for efficiency losses for long-haul cooling and handling, and 40% off for conversion back into electricity, and the solar energy energy in Namibia is reduced to about 29% of its original value.

Of course, this ignores the issue of distributing hydrogen in the country where it is imported, as well as the complete lack of any large-scale hydrogen distribution network. Because shipping hydrogen is so expensive, 85 percent of the hydrogen consumed worldwide is produced locally.

Delivering the same amount of energy in the form of electricity via high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cables is far more efficient, with losses of only 3.5 percent every 1000 kilometers. Of fact, because Namibia is in southern Africa, close to South Africa, it would be more convenient to transmit the electricity there. Solar, wind, and storage in Northern Africa coupled to large HVDC pipes traversing the Strait of Gibraltar, Tunisia to Italy, and the Bosphorus as transmission lines do now makes far more economic sense. A Moroccan project with 20 GW of wind and solar energy firmed by storage has been proposed, as well as a 3,500-kilometer HVDC transmission connection to the United Kingdom. Assuming the entire route is submerged, this would transport 88 percent of the generated electricity to market, rather than 29 percent more than three times as much. Similarly, the Australian green hydrogen proposal originally planned to run HVDC transmission to Singapore, but was sidetracked by the hydrogen craze and now plans to create and ship hydrogen.

There are, of course, far less efficient methods of transporting hydrogen. It might be chemically transformed into a stable liquid at room temperature, then extracted at the destination by stepping on the voltage a few more times, wasting a lot of valuable energy in the process. It might be transformed into a liquid hydrocarbon with the addition of CO2 from someplace, improved to a usable plug-compatible fuel, and then exported for a fraction of the cost of simply running things on electricity, with the added “benefit” of air pollution.

This isn’t to imply that green hydrogen produced in Namibia can’t be useful. The country is reliant on South Africa for urea fertilizer, but it may be able to produce it itself to meet the needs of the country’s agriculture-based economy, which accounts for 9% of GDP. Fertilizer, unlike hydrogen, requires a large amount of hydrogen and is straightforward to disperse once generated. That’s one of the reasons why my forecast for hydrogen demand is bearish, with demand declining over the next few decades.

Another simple analysis that takes into consideration the physics, engineering, and prices concludes that hydrogen is not an economically viable energy storage option for our future decarbonized economy. Hand-waving, ignorance, pure #hopium, or downright larceny underpin all of the schemes offering to generate hydrogen where sunlight and wind are abundant and inexpensive, then ship it to where energy is consumed.

1 m3 of natural gas equals how many kWh?

The stages of multiplication and division can be consolidated into a single step. This simplification implies that your property’s volume correction factors and calorific values are both constant at 1.02264 and 40. As a result, the calculation is simplified as follows.

What does m3 mean on a gas meter?

This meter counts gas consumption in cubic metres (m3) and typically shows five digits, a decimal point, and then additional numbers. Near the readout on digital gas meters, the units ‘M3? will be displayed.

To read the meter, write down the first five numbers, including any zeros, from left to right. Any numbers after the decimal point or space, which may also be highlighted in red, should be ignored.

What is the current price of natural gas?

The Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price is a unit of measurement for the price of 1 million Btu of natural gas in US dollars. When there was a major scarcity of natural gas in February of 2003, the price of natural gas skyrocketed. Within a month, the price of natural gas jumped from $5.58 to $18.48.

The Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price is now at $8.87, up from $8.16 the previous market day and $2.78 a year ago.

This is an increase of 8.70 percent from the previous trading day and a year ago of 219.1 percent.

What is the source of natural gas’s high cost?

The current price increase is being driven by a decrease in the amount of natural gas held in storage in the United States. According to the US Energy Department, gas in storage was 17% below its five-year average this week. Commodity traders, however, reacted this week to forecasts of hotter weather in the Southwest. Hot weather raises gas prices by increasing demand for air conditioning.

“Weather has the ability to shift these values drastically up and down,” Molchanov said. “If it’s a really hot summer, the price goes up; if it’s a very cold winter, the price goes up.”

How are natural gas bills calculated?

The cubic foot is a popular unit of measurement for natural gas, and you’ll be paid in thousands of cubic feet (MCF) or hundreds of cubic feet (CCF). You could also be charged by the therm, which is roughly equivalent to a CCF or 100 cubic feet. The utility sets a meter between the incoming electric power or gas lines and the point of distribution at the house to monitor how much electricity or gas you consume.

The force of moving gas in the pipe drives a gas meter, which turns quicker as the flow increases. The pointer on the next higher value dial advances one number for every complete round of the dial with the lower value.

When reading a gas meter, read and write down the numbers from left to right on the dials (opposite of an electric meter). It’s vital to observe that the hands of adjacent dials on both types of meters turn in opposite directions.

Is Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) more expensive than natural gas?

LNG prices are often higher than CNG pricing since LNG has a more complicated production and shipping procedure.

Is LNG less expensive than diesel?

When it comes to purchasing natural gas trucks vs. diesel vehicles, many fleet managers and owner/operators are assessing their alternatives. “When it comes to diesel or natural gas vehicles, which is best for my bottom line?” is the million-dollar question. It is critical for fleet managers and owners/operators to understand the distinctions between diesel and natural gas trucks in order to make an informed decision regarding their business.

Compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are two forms of natural gas fuel (LNG). Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks. CNG is the less expensive of the two fuels and is now much more widely available. CNG, on the other hand, demands more room and weight than LNG. While LNG is less expensive than diesel, it is not as cheap as compressed natural gas (CNG). LNG, on the other hand, can fit a lot more fuel in a smaller space than CNG, resulting in less weight.

The Cummins Westport ISL G and ISX12 G engines that Freightliner utilizes today are ideal for regional haul tractor applications as well as some vocational activities like trash, snow plow, street sweeper, dump, and more. Compared to diesel engines, these engines are both quieter and cleaner. They produce up to 20% fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) and are up to 10 decibels quieter than comparable diesel engines.

Companies who use natural gas trucks can save a lot of money on gasoline because natural gas is cheaper than diesel. That is the most significant benefit of buying natural gas trucks. Unlike diesel, the cost of natural gas fuel has remained low and consistent roughly $1.50 to $2.00 per diesel gallon equivalent less than diesel. This is especially advantageous for fleets that cover a large number of miles (80,000-120,000 miles per year is the sweet spot).

While natural gas truck options are becoming more popular, advances to improve the economy of diesel trucks have also been made. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and BlueTec Emissions Technology, for example, were developed by Freightliner to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles not only meet, but surpass, EPA criteria. Simultaneously, these solutions enable diesel trucks to achieve exceptional fuel economy. SCR technology, for example, is notable for: