Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUnnatural Gas: The Inflated Promise of a Not-So-Clean Fuel
Holding out the prospect of vast new domestic reserves, the natural gas industry is promising to make the United States an energy-rich nation once again. But we should be careful what we wish for. Spending those riches could endanger water supplies for millions of Americans while still failing to solve the climate crisis.
Electric utilities have expanded their consumption because gas-fired plants can be "turned up" to meet high peak power demand more quickly than can coal-fired plants. Natural gas is also more climate-friendly than coal and less menacing than nuclear energy.
With the discovery of drilling techniques that can extract natural gas from deep shale formations, the authoritative Potential Gas Committee estimates that the total of confirmed and potentially accessible gas reserves has grown 35 percent in just three years.
Climate bills in the House and Senate contain strong incentives to increase drilling and burning of natural gas. Seized by anti-coal fervor, most major environmental groups have gone along with the gas rush.
But natural gas is "clean" only in contrast to coal - just as a bacon cheeseburger can be regarded as healthful compared with a double bacon cheeseburger. Per kilowatt of electricity generated, gas releases 55 percent as much carbon as coal. And gas drilling poses a growing threat to our water supplies.
The investigative news organization ProPublica has documented thousands of cases of surface and groundwater contamination caused by drilling in conventional and shale deposits in six states.
Concern is now growing over hydraulic fracturing, in which water laced with sand, clay and "fracturing fluids" is pumped deep underground to create fissures and free gas trapped in rock formations. Most of the polluted water returns to the surface and must be handled as waste.
Drilling in shale, which depends heavily on fracturing, can consume hundreds of times more water per well than does drilling in traditional gas fields.
In Pennsylvania, which shares the vast, gas-laden Marcellus shale formation with four other states, drilling is expected to generate 19 million gallons of waste water daily by 2011, according to the state's Department of Environmental Protection. The water, which carries both natural and human-made toxins and is up to five times as salty as sea water, puts a heavy burden on water treatment plants. New York residents are working to prevent drilling in the Marcellus formation, because its shale and gas underlie the groundwater source for millions of people downstate.
Meanwhile, major fracturing-fluid manufacturers refuse to reveal their products' ingredients. (Industry leader Halliburton maintains that to compel it to list the chemicals in its products would be an "unconstitutional taking" of its intellectual property.) Investigators have managed to identify many of compounds used in fluids, and many are toxic. Some, including benzene, formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, ethylene dioxide and nickel sulfate, are confirmed carcinogens.
Gas companies have enjoyed a slack environmental leash since the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted them from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Water Pollution Control Act. Bills now stalled in Congress that would re-regulate the industry need broader grassroots support.
Meanwhile, in competing with Big Coal for the affections of Congress, the newly formed America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) launched an $80 million advertising and lobbying campaign earlier this year to promote its "clean, abundant, American, reliable, and versatile" product. As climate bills work their way through Congress, ANGA's efforts appear to be paying off.
Risking our water so we can burn more natural gas will not be the planet's miracle climate cure. For the United States to achieve necessary reductions in greenhouse emissions - estimated at more than 80 percent - will require not more energy production, even if somewhat cleaner, but deep cuts in energy consumption.
Coal must be phased out as quickly as possible, but more gas won't accomplish that. While electric utilities' gas consumption doubled from 1996 to 2007, coal use continued its steady climb.
What if, with shale drilling, we could achieve another doubling of gas-fired electricity generation, but this time eliminate an equivalent amount of coal-fired generation? Even that steep escalation of gas drilling would cut the utility industry's carbon emissions by only 12 percent and the nation's total carbon emissions by just 5 percent, based on Energy Department figures.
Financier T. Boone Pickens recommends running our vehicles on natural gas. But substituting natural gas for gasoline in all vehicles would reduce the nation's total carbon emissions by less than 9 percent. Converting all gasoline-powered vehicles would consume more natural gas than electric utilities, homes and businesses combined. Consequences for the nation's water would be disastrous.
Natural gas is being hailed by some, including Pickens, as a high-energy "bridge" to a renewable future, and by others as sufficiently climate-friendly to be a "destination" fuel. But as gas' environmental drawbacks become more evident, it's looking more like a bridge to nowhere.
33 Comments so far
Show AllA new 42-inch-diameter natural gas [NG] pipeline has just been completed from Wyoming to the Ohio/Indiana border. That sort of infrastructure does not get built without certain kinds of certainties, as it were. I've been watching its construction in Franklin County, Indiana, where it has taken out swaths of forest. I don't know how much farther east its construction is intended. The only "news" I've seen about this massive pipeline project is local, because several Indiana counties are threatening to sue for unrecompensed road damage. No national news on it that I know about.
A couple of people on this thread have mentioned pro-publica's really excellent coverage on the issue of "fracking" and the industry's refusal to tell us what chemicals they are using underground to break up the shale formations that had been trapping the gas.
I don't have to tell you what I am poisoning you with! That's "intellectual property."
If you think pipeline construction issues are limited to places like the Middle East or Afghanistan or the "stans" in general, please cease being naive.
We're all peasants in the eyes of The State. Just stay out of the way. This pipeline had to get at least a thousand miles of rights of way, one way or another, by purchase or eminent domain, state by state and county by county and property by property, and NARY A PEEP on the MSM.
And as for water quality, forget it. That's why we're putting it in plastic BPA bottles don't ya know. Why would you wanna drink water anyway, when there's BPA beer?
"Fracking" is a sort of diminutive of "fracturing" rock, in this case deep underground. A major part of the issue here is that it uses WATER that is in increasingly short supply for human consumption while the corporations doing the "fracking" really could care less about the "quality" of the water they are using.
The origins of the term "fragging" are a bit muddier. The term arose in Viet Nam. Generally, the term refers to taking out a superior officer (in quotes) because the sonuvabitch was trying to put you in harm's way for no good reason other than his ambition. One thinks of a hand grenade as a source of "fragging." He also said, "Don't think; just Do." My white ass.
We are being subjected to a "natural gas" alternative that aint. Worse, this time around, the NGOs we expect to help us figure these things out have been asleep at the wheel. Tbones caught 'em and I'll give him credit for that. Smart guy, but what does he want?
I think he wants to control the water supply. You think you have a "right to drink"? Better think again. Water is the next oil and this has been evolving for decades. Why do you think Cheney returned to the Private Sector? If he had wanted to he could have had himself elected. To realize this all you have to do is consider how close McCain came. "I had other priorities."
We actually do have a "planned economy." Intended to fail for you and me.
They used to call that Communism. Now they call it Market Capitalism.
When the elderly freeze to death this winter in their homes will the MEDIA report it? When people on Social Security get no Cost of Living increase towards their monthly check because the government has asserted that THERE IS NO INFLATION, will our children come running to save us?
Peak oil is a myth. Peak water is not. The Saudis are your friends.
-30-
Some efforts to fight water privatization have been successful but yeah it's a toughie out there. Still, water is a renewable resource while oil, the type that's drilled out, isn't. Without oil to aid in privatizing water supplies, the water wars might reduce.
It is too easy to take natural gas for granted unless people know the dirty secrets of those pipelines. It's a shame that we're hooked to it. Myth or not about Peak Oil, I'm not so sure the Saudi royals can hold out forever.
Water is a renewable resource indeed but if they already have the strategies for keeping control even without oil, they'll do it. Hemp can replace oil for plastics so "Big Water" can still privatize the water supplies. OleManRiver is probably correct though. Society has withered down and not fought back effectively. That needs to change.
Conservation will save more energy then all the alt. and standard sources combined but it has many hitches. The biggest is with a broken economy few have the extra cash right now to do much of it to old homes and business building. Nat. gas is better then coal and imported oil so we should use it. As for the water hazard what did we elect the Dems. for? i thought we were going to re-regulate some of these Industries well here's a reason to do it now and pronto. The problem here is the corruption inside the Dinocratic party is almost as bad as it is in the Goper party. Big Biz set out to dominate both major parties and with a frozen in place 2 party system this was a smart strategy. Now any change worthwhile is almost impossible. Look @ how the Health mafia has twisted those reforms into a huge Industry windfall as an example. The same thing will happen with this.
Good idea! And wouldn't that be a great stimulation to the economy.....putting money into peoples homes, saving energy, creating jobs......but I can see the better wisdom of transferring that money to Goldman S, Citibank, AIG and oother insurance companies. Silly me.
Once again we have it all wrong.
Halliburton is simply offering us flavored drinking water: "Minty" Methane, "Cool" Clay and "Fruity" Fracturing Fluids.
Mmmmm.
Refreshing.
Natural Gas is held in high regard by Joe Romm at Climate Progress, a leading climate blog. Don't know if he has considered everything.
Increased exploitation of NG only makes sense as a bridge to a lower carbon future. It would have to be used ASAP to almost completely replace coal in electricity generation, and get a big part of that CO2 emission reduction goal. It would be a quick hit with almost immediate effect. NG will still have to be replaced by renewables (and/or nukes), and using it only to increase fossil fuel energy generation would be really stupid.
Secondly, it only makes sense if it is done environmentally friendly. Fracking chemicals have already casued a lot of problems, and the gas industry is lobbying to keep the EPA out. State regulations are not uniform, and not always enforced, so the gas industry will have states competing with how much risk they want to take with their water quality. Bad news.
Natural gas won't fuel our cars: costs of infrastructure are too high and natural gas explodes more violently than gasoline. Trucks, trains, and buses maybe, but not cars.
If you want to see the future of cars (and let's pray, light rail and buses), take 57 minutes to watch Shai Agassi talk about his swappable battery technology. (I can't explain his well thought out prototype in a brief way). Why will it work? Because its costs are lower. http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi
Agassi's idea is the only thing that stands in the way of a decidedly lesser role for automobile future predicted by the prescient James Howard Kunstler. It's also the virtual end of the internal combustion engine in less than 10 years.
The problem with the batteries is that a primary ingrediant comes only from China. Plus the disposal problem and the extra electricity production needed.
Natural gas won't fuel our cars: costs of infrastructure are too high and natural gas explodes more violently than gasoline. Trucks, trains, and buses maybe, but not cars.
If you want to see the future of cars (and let's pray, light rail and buses), take 57 minutes to watch Shai Agassi talk about his swappable battery technology. Why will it work? Because its costs are lower. http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi
Agassi's idea is the only thing that stands in the way of decidedly lesser role for automobile future predicted by the prescient James Howard Kunstler.
Even the metro buses I used to come across that talk about "clean gas" admit to relying heavily on natural gas for fuel. Biocrude needs to go mainstream for what it's worth. Coal, gasoline, and natural gas are all fossil fuel based. T. Boon Pickens is just a greenwasher when his comprehensive plan is thoroughly examined.
Yeah, a lot of buses on routes I don't take in DC have signs on them, saying "This bus powered by clean natural gas". I make a face every time I see one.
It's only drinking water. What's the big deal? After all, we're talking PROFITS here.
I heat my house with natural gas. For a person in a cloudy, northern state, what better options are there? If you live in town, you can't do geothermal. I don't think burning wood is an improvement. Certainly not fuel oil. What are we left with?
I'm looking at retrofitting a house with bales of straw. Lots of people have built homes from the ground up this way, and they sure look fine. he materials are cheap and the labor doesn't look bad (says I, a rank amateur). I found the Rocky Mountain Institute pretty informative (credit to Henry 8 here on CD).
I suspect this may be a good compromise for a lot of people, since this can apparently be done with relatively little training and expense while using previously built standing structures (again, this is a newbie giving early impressions).
Michael Reynolds' Earthships are amazing. They look like something one would have to do from scratch, but much of his work on individual systems could be instituted separately.
Ole Amory is a whiz. Their original building besides being home was a labratory, it was facinating. Wonder if they still live there?
Check out Austin and New Mexico. Austin because they just changed their building codes to allow alernatives like this and New Mexico because a lot of these houses have been constructed there. I worked on a couple...WAY back...but strictly as labor, so I don't know diddley about the ins and outs of construction and design, but its not that hard I think.
Buildings can be designed to use passive solar heating, retaining the heat of any sunlight to hit the building. I have also heard of a system that uses the sun to heat up air, then when the air hits a certain temperature it is blown into the house.
Some extra weatherization would help too.
Zmann, insulation from straw and hay instead of typical insulating foam made out of fossil fuels actually cuts down heating costs significantly in the winter. Making solar panels go mainstream and pushing for removing HOA would help.
Don't forget wet blown cellulose, a terrific insulator made from waste materials (paper)
Solar panels already have a new advantage in the individual (forgot what they call it) mini transmitters(?) on each solar panel so you have small wires going through the roof rather than a very large bundle....much more energy efficient.
Are you referring to the nanotechnology solar panels?
The wet brown cellulose sounds interesting. I'll give it a research. Thanks.
Sounds good.
Our experience from the seventies energy crisis will tell you thats somewhat true. But overall it won't suffice, nor is it dependable because of the lack of sun at many times.
But insulation and other measures can certainly cut down on energy needs.
Check out the Rocky Mountain Institute, they have been doing this stuff for years.
Natural gas beats whats in second place by a long chalk.
I can't see how people can do without natural gas short of very expensive alternatives. Here is some good news for both developers and environmentalists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas
This is much better than passing a business meddling climate change bill that does nothing to curb global warming while giving Goldman Sachs more money. We could create more green jobs consisting of renewable natural gas production. Who can beat that?
People did without natural gas just fine before the age of oil. I agree with your idea but it will take more efforts to replace regular natural gas with it. Given the rising unemployment, those additional efforts needed might as well be transformed into those new green jobs as you suggested.
I don't think the idea of fueling cars with NG will get too far though.....but it might serve well for commercial trucking.
Thats part of the problem as I see it, people that feel NG and other alternatives aren't "green" enough.
And you sure have that Cap and Tax bill (the Repubs tagged it right) dead center. Thats exactly what it does. Its even counterproductive to enviornmental issues if you look at what it does and causes, rather than the vague promises its predicated on. More fool's gold by business.
Well, there are electric space and water heaters, and until I moved to DC I always had electric stoves and ovens.
What about NG providing the electricity. I don't know this as fact, but surely transmitting electricity is cheaper than transporting or piping NG? Either way NG is one of the best transformative enviornmental energy sources available to us.
The book Carbon Free, Nuclear Free promotes natural gas as a standby energy source for wind and solar energy. That's pretty much the only role I would agree with fossil fuels being used for. And other, constant forms of energy such as wave energy and geothermal can provide a clean baseload of energy.
Problem with standby is that its about a millinium with the best will in the world before a new system like you envision could possibly be put in place. And you have to solve myrid problems. Not all areas are good for wind or solar power and you have energy loss in transmission.
When you get to practical application, the problems arise.
The electric ones look interesting. How well in performance do the electric ones do compared to the natural gas based ones and what are the costs savings if an apartment complex were to switch from natural gas based to electric based? I'll be moving to an apartment in Indianapolis from Louisville in Janurary and it's all natural gas as far as I can tell. I don't have any options to change anything.
Substituting electric for natural gas is safer and actually energy efficient even though anything that runs on electricity will require coal in some sense. Solar and wind can help cut down coal usage though Henry8 is correct that bad weather can damper its effectiveness.
But doesn't using electricity to heat a house lose efficiency just because electricity is never a primary source of energy but always a secondary one? In other words you have to boil water to make steam to turn a turbine and a rotor in a generator and then the electricity has to go through a resistance to make heat. Wouldn't it be better to get the heat directly--from the Earth, from cow manure, from burning biomass?
You raise an interesting point. Water is a renewable source of energy and so too is biomass. There are also solar panels and wind turbines. Biomass for electricity sounds interesting. I need some more info on that.
P.S.: If that can be done, then I wonder how well biomass from hemp would fare for generating electricity.