“Together with Chevron and the U.S. Department of Energy, the USGS discovered the reserve of hydrates in high concentrations in 15-to-30-meter-thick beds of sand—conditions very much like terrestrial methane hydrate reserves, which have already yielded commercially useful flow rates. These deposits are substantially different from the gas hydrates that have previously been discovered in U.S. coastal waters, which exist in relatively shallow waters at the surface of the seabed and have become a concern for climate scientists because of their potential to melt rapidly and release large quantities of methane into the atmosphere.”

Let me see if I understand correctly. Methane clathrates are found underground as well as undersea. We know how to economically mine the underground clathrates for methane (aka NG) and are doing so on a limited basis. But ways to get at the submarine clathrate deposits are still being developed.

Is that a fair assessment?

Re “a higher floor price would make sense but seems unlikely.”

I believe W-M mandates a price floor that starts at $10/ton and increases by 5% per year over inflation, which would put it at $15/ton (today’s $$) in 2020. The price ceiling ($28/ton in 2012, and 60% over a 3-year rolling average after 2015) could theoretically allow emission prices to rise by over 40% per year indefinitely. I would think there might be room for compromise between the initially low floor price and the uncertain ceiling price.

Savings are from other effects of the bill. Increasingly efficient appliances using less energy, refurbished old buildings and efficient new buildings using less energy, more efficient transportation using less energy, etc.

“When a tree falls in a tropical old-growth forest, the above ground biomass decays fairly rapidly and its carbon is returned to the atmosphere as CO2. If the trunk of that tree were to be harvested, before decay, and were stored anoxically, or burned in place of coal, a net of about 2/3 of that amount of CO2 would be prevented from entering the atmosphere. If the ash-equivalent of each tree trunk (about 1% of dry mass) were recycled to the site of harvest, the process would be indefinitely sustainable and eco-neutral. Such harvest of the undisturbed old-growth forests of Amazonia and Equatorial Africa could effectively remove about 0.88 to 1.54 GtC/yr from the atmosphere. With care, additional harvest of adjacent live trees, equaling up to two times the mass of the fallen trees, might be similarly collected, just as sustainably, and with almost as little ecological impact. This very large contribution to the mitigation of global warming is discussed – with caveats. It could result in substantially reduced coal emissions, but without closing down many presently coal-fired power plants – and at much lower cost and lead-time than carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).”

Another “wild card” in the next 10-20 years is if we see a rapid electrification of the auto fleet which could increase electricity consumption considerably. This would have the benefit of reducing gas/diesel consumption and lowering GHG from that source, but will put additional demands on generation. Because of the inertia of changing from ICE to EV, I would expect that most of this shift will be beyond 2020.

I think that a rapid move towards *cost-competitive* renewable technologies will help to alleviate this.

http://technologyreview.com/energy/22756/