Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Shale Gas as Dirty as Oil, Coal for Warming
Shale gas, an energy source enjoying a boom in North America and Europe, carries a greater carbon footprint than oil, coal and conventional gas over at least a 20-year period, according to a study released on Tuesday.
Shale gas, an energy source enjoying a boom in North America and Europe, carries a greater carbon footprint than oil, coal and conventional gas over at least a 20-year period, according to a study released on Tuesday. Scientists led by Robert Howarth from New York's Cornell University looked at greenhouse-gas emissions from the extraction of shale gas in the United States, drawing on data from the oil and gas industry and from a federal auditing agency, the General Accountability Office (GAO).
Shale gas holes up in a dense sedimentary rock which is fractured by large volumes of water and chemicals that are piped in horizontally under high pressure.
After the fracturing, large amounts of water returns to the surface within a few days, along with significant amounts of methane, that comprises the bulk of the shale gas.
The problem, though, is that methane is a potent greenhouse gas as well as a fuel, and large amounts of it leak from shale-gas extraction, said the study.
During the life cycle of an average shale-gas well, between 3,6% and 7,9% of the well's total production is emitted to the atmosphere as methane, it said.
This comes through routine venting, equipment leaks and emissions that are included in the water flowback.
These leaks are at least 30% more than -- and perhaps more than twice as great as -- those from conventional gas, although their emissions from routine production and downstream operations are the same, it said.
Methane is more than 20 times more efficient than carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas emitted by fossil fuels, for trapping solar heat.
But it lingers in the air for only between nine and 15 years, whereas a molecule of CO2 stays around for a century or more.
"The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years," said the paper.
"Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years."
The study is published online in Climatic Change Letters, part of the Springer stable of journals.
Alternative energy futures
Major investments are being made in shale gas in the United States and in Europe.
They are based in part on the goal of reducing geopolitical risk from imported conventional gas but also on the contention that shale is cleaner than oil and coal because it releases less CO2 for every unit of energy it provides.
It thus can be a useful transitional energy towards a low-carbon economy, according to this argument.
According to the US Department of Energy, total domestic production of natural gas will grow by 20% by 2035. Shale gas alone will increase its share of production from 16% in 2009 to 45% in 2035.
"The large greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming," said Howarth.
"The full footprint should be used in planning for alternative energy futures that adequately consider global climate change."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllFunny how, post-Fukushima, articles on the threat of AGW are recieving little interest and zero comments.
Renewables are tried and true technologies whose usage is being hindered by vested interest greed and ignorance.
Regardless of the amount of conservation implemented or the worlds population Renewables are the only sensible source of energy.
As long as the Sun shines there is an endless supply.
Likewise since fossil fuels will eventually be depleted it is mandatory that renewables be built ASAP.
The proven feasibility is in the fact that some Utilities in States that have been mandated a 20% portfolio of Renewables within a decade are two have no difficulty acheiving that 20% or so sourcing of Renewable energy.
USAans are so browbeaten into pessimistic submission that they find it difficult to rise to Golden Oppurtunities.
Many households world wide have little difficulty operating totally on renewable energy.
The Renewable Energy Rich West and Plains states can supply much of the needed energy to the East Coast along new Smart Green Grids (replacing the present antiquated Grids), and by all means bury the new grids.
i totally support renewables, but i believe shale gas will help us with the transition.when comparing it to coal, the article fails to mention environmental destruction, fly ash, etc that coal causes. the sentence about the longevity of methane versus co2 seems to be an afterthought, while it actually is a considerable difference. with ever advancing technology, the gas company should be able to capture that 7.9% leakage. fossil fuels are finite and our use of them is destroying our planet; however, natural gas is domestic and can help us switch to renewables. it pays to keep in mind that fossil fuels are not the problem, people are.
I suspect that you don't live in Pennsylvania - or if you do you are a rich mineral-rights owner...
and you are contributing to the discussion in what way???
Sorry for the bluntness. My point was that if you actually lived in an area where fracking was going on, you wouldn't think of it as so suitable an energy source - not without much tougher safeguards than the curent ones - and stiff taxes to mitigate the impacts.
i agree with both your suggestions, tougher safeguards and stiff taxes. closed loop system should also be madatory. however, from my preliminary research, i have not found any cases of fracking contaminating aquifers. the dimmock problem was caused by a pre-drilling spill (i believe by halliburton, go figure) and certainly cannot compare to the gulf of mexico disaster. there are so many current environmental problems with water and the food that we consume that i think we need to focus on them. they just found raditation in philadelphia's drinking water (certainly not from fracking) and they call the passaic river in new jersey viagra falls. if we want to do something about climate change on the local level PLANT TREES.
lkp
Fracking destroys to much of our scarce, diminishing and costly to replace aquifers.
Non shale gas ( large domestic and foreign supplies), highlt filtered non MTR coal and land based non tar sands oil ( and perhaps non- disrupting food biofuels) sould fuel a rapid change to renewables.
What is "highly filtered" coal?
Funny how so many "progressives", post-Fukushima, are getting warm and fuzzy feelings toward fossil fuels. I predicted that it woiuld happen, but it is sad nontheless.
I am admantly oppossed to fossil fuels but I will choose the lest evils to achieve a rapid transition ( 50 years) to 90% Renewable energy.
Highly filtered coal is using the very best technology available to capture toxins and GHG.
As much as I love Renewables I realize there has to be a short as possible transition phase.
I work for MSHA, and am around the coal industry every day, but I've never heard of of "hightly filtered coal".
Capture and storage of GHG's from a full-scale power plant is of dubious feasability htat has never been proven.
And a transition must be done much, much faster than 50 years. (where did that figure come from?) Funny how you are suddenly following the line of the oil and coal industry.
Fukushima was a early generation design that was hit by a 40 foot tsunami. So Fukushima is a tragedy, but is also unique and cannot be compared to third-generation reactors in terms of safety. It also pales next to other industrial catastrophes like Bhopal.
And may more people dies in the floods of Pakistan and Russian heat wave, including the subsequent grain shortages, last summer - as clear a climate change reelated disaster as ther will ever be, than will ever die from Fukushima.
And for every radionuclide atom from Fukushima, you are inhaling many thousands from coal-burning power plants, and natural sources.
every retired nuclear plant is going to be replaced by a couple coal plants - and they are not going to build them if they could only use them for 50 years.
does anyone know the name of the study? it seems a bit vague. i'd like to verify the sources and see if there are similar studies with similar results.
lkp
(From Wikipedia)
In late 2010, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency [8] issued a new report, the first update on emission factors for greenhouse gas emissions by the oil and gas industry by the EPA since 1996. In this new report, EPA concluded that shale gas emits much larger amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, than does conventional gas.
8.^ Environmental Protection Agency, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry, Background Technical Support Document, posted to web 30 November 2010.
did a little research and found debunking articles already. a paragragph from the nyt echoed my thoughts.
"Of course, there are so many caveats. The data in Mr. Howarth’s study — even by his own admission — is woefully thin. Much of the methane emissions associated with natural gas development are, or at least should be, relatively easy to prevent and capture. And if that fugitive gas is captured, natural gas remains a far, far cleaner-burning option than coal or oil. "
as an environmentalist, i feel justified in supported natural gas, shale or otherwise.
lkp
lkp,
I am wondering why you are not addressing fracking's impact on aquifer water in this thread?
Also, while people are embracing "temporary" burning of fossil fuels to move us from "foreign oil," why is there no concerted push or mass production for homes to have solar power?
fracking wasn't the topic, and when i can afford it, i plan to install solar. do you have solar power?
lkp
lkp -- you said:
"fracking wasn't the topic" ???
How can you make such a statement? That is exactly what this article is about! It would seem you have no idea what "fracking" is. I suggest you Google the term, and reread this article -- especially paragraphs 3 and 4.
You also said in your previous post that:
"as an environmentalist, i feel justified in supported natural gas, shale or otherwise."
How can you support natural gas from shale if you do not know the process of extracting it (fracking) and the incredible danger posed to ground water aquifers?
i believe the topic was about methane escaped into the atmosphere contributing to global warming. here is an article debunking the original.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... ItOg%3D%3D
lkp
yes, i know what fracking is. the fluid used in 99% and 1% chemicals, some of which are considered carcinogens. fracking is done at 4000 feet. in the northeast, most drinking wells are 100-200 feet deep (these are private wells). more worrisome is the condition of our rivers and treams that are only 100-200 feet above our drinking water. test your local stream and see how many pesticide, herbicides, hormone, and toxins are in it. then have your hair tested to see how many toxins are in your body (probably about 147). next, test the air you are breathing, then begin worrying.
lkp
does anyone know the source of the allegation that much of the methane emissions associated with natural gas development are, or at least should be, relatively easy to prevent and capture? And if that fugitive gas is captured, natural gas remains a far, far cleaner-burning option than coal or oil? Is there a study to that effect? What is the name of the study? it seems a bit vague. i'd like to verify the sources and see if there are similar studies with similar results.
Here are some simple facts:
Most people in rich countries and most relatively-rich people in developing and poorer countries simply do not give a damn about climate change. Because, deep down, they believe that climate change will not affect their lives. If they have children and grandchildren, they probably believe in their competitive abilities so that they can take care of themselves when things become messy due to climate change. Or, they simply do not give a damn about their children and grandchildren either!
Most of these said rich people and those living in rich countries do not believe in fairness other than paying lip service and acting holier-than-thou based on some ideological knowledge from the 19th century. If they truly believed in fairness, they will realize that they are beneficiaries of past conquests that often involved murder and genocide. They are still beneficiaries even if they are not living in the conquered lands as long as they are dependent on and enable the current system in various ways and to varying degrees.
If they believe in fairness, they will realize that the current CO2 levels are a result of cumulative emissions due to burning of fossil fuels in the last 250 years and that some countries have a disproportionately large share in these emissions. Their societies, and therefore these people individually, have benefited as a direct result of these historically high level of emissions and therefore their countries should be the first to cut down on emissions.
If these people have any sense of fairness, they will agree that bringing the atmospheric CO2 levels to 350 ppm in the next few years will require drastic cuts in the total emissions, even while allowing poorer countries to increase their carbon emissions somewhat, as they try to move out of poverty.
This means that coal burning and most other fossil fuel burning needs to be cut down by as much as 50-80%. Which means they need to be prepared for some major lifestyle changes. Not just for themselves, but for everyone, including, and especially, the rich people.
So, logically, this should be the real fight - the fight for an ecologically sustainable future, which will encompass everything else. But they won't do it. They will fight only if their lives are personally affected. And that is the proof of my first sentence above - that people simply don't give a damn!
Do they really not give a damn? Their lives are hollow and they know it! Check out how unhappy they really are. The ones who don't give a damn are tortured inside. You'll see it in their eyes after a few years of observation. Of course there are no fences/barriers to their taking a walk on the left side. And they don't need a dystopia along side utopia to remind them how to appreciate the latter. They will learn to appreciate utopia after we drop the hammer on their godz and then update the school curricula.
Solutions start by every individual doing there part in some small or big way. Use less stuff. Plant a tree. Pick up some garbage. Leave everywhere you go a little cleaner than when you got there. Start demanding more from all levels of government. These may seem like small things and won't make any difference, but if enough of us are willing to do them, and continue doing so, it will eventually make a difference. Read any of the Plan B books by Lester Brown. They mention the problems of the world in a non doom and gloom perspective then give us the ways of getting these issues solved. It is very common sense reading.