Shale Gas: Time to Look Before We Leap Any Further
Submitted by Janet Ranganathan and Kevin Kennedy on December 20, 2011
Shale gas facility in Lancashire, UK. Photo credit: flickr/JustinWoolfordShale gas is a game-changer for global energy supply. It is already transforming the U.S. energy outlook, and is expected to deliver over 40% of domestic gas production by 2025 (Figure 1). Other countries and regions, notably Europe and China, may soon follow suit, in a repeat of the early 20th century oil rush.
Opinion is bitterly divided, however, over the environmental risks and benefits of this abundant new source of energy – so much so, that the different sides struggle to agree even on basic facts. The debate is raging over two key issues – on-the-ground impacts to water, air, communities, land use, wildlife, and habitats; and the broader energy and global warming implications of developing shale gas.
Attention so far has focused on the local impacts of shale gas extraction through the rock-blasting process known as hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”). The Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production has warned that “disciplined attention must be devoted to reducing the environmental impact” of shale gas development in the face of its expected continued rapid growth, with as many as 100,000 more wells expected over the next few decades.
The direct impact of shale gas on global warming is another bone of contention. While the combustion of natural gas results in less carbon dioxide emissions than combustion of coal per Btu, the production and distribution of natural gas also causes leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. This increases the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, reducing the global warming benefits compared to coal.1
Figure 1. U.S. Natural Gas Production Projection (Trillion cubic feet) Source: U.S. Energy Information AdministrationIn addition, a comparison that simply replaces coal with gas in electricity generation ignores the broader greenhouse gas implications of the shale gas phenomenon. One particular concern that policy makers should focus on is the potential impact of the shale gas boom on the renewable energy industry. Unless the federal government sets a price on carbon, the growing U.S. reliance on natural gas could squeeze out zero emission energy sources like wind and solar power. This could in turn undermine, and increase the cost of, U.S. efforts to address climate change.
The debate over shale gas development provides a strategic opportunity to engage policy makers, both on the long-term role of natural gas in the U.S. and beyond, and on how to integrate climate change considerations into economic development and energy policy.
The World Resources Institute (WRI) will use its well-established roles as policy analysts and honest brokers to inform public policy on shale gas and dispel the confusion and competing claims surrounding its impacts. We will conduct independent, objective analysis in two key areas:
The life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas production - from procuring water and developing wells to distribution and transmission.
The effects of shale gas supply on U.S. and global energy supply markets, particularly renewables.
We expect to publish preliminary findings in early 2012. Based on these, we will develop recommendations for regulatory policies and best practice approaches to minimize lifecycle emissions from shale gas extraction. Our goal is simple: to ensure that the emerging industry supports rather than hampers the global transition to a low carbon future.
WRI will also seek to bridge the growing divide over this issue by seeking input from industry, government, environmental and community representatives from the United States and other shale rich countries, including China. We will solicit their help in two ways.
First, we seek stakeholder engagement in developing a framework for assessing the environmental impacts of shale gas. This work will underpin our initial greenhouse gas analysis of shale gas, and could also be applied in future to impacts on water or land. (We will not focus our initial efforts on water pollution or other local impacts, since others are already covering this ground). Second, we will engage stakeholders in developing consensus approaches to shrink the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas production.
In an increasingly energy-hungry world, shale gas may seem to offer a secure and economical path forward. But it is vital that we understand its potential to harm as well as to help humanity.
Impacts on local communities should not become an acceptable trade off for boosting domestic gas supply. And at the national and global levels we must put in place the conditions to drive reductions in lifecycle emissions from shale gas and ensure that it complements rather than displaces cleaner alternatives such as wind and solar.
It is time to take a closer look at shale gas before we leap any further.
-
For more information, see Fulton Mark and Nils Mellquist, Saya Kitasei, Joel Bluestein. (2011). Comparing Life-Cylce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas and Coal. Deutsche Bank Group and WorldWatch Institute. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/pdf/Natural_Gas_LCA_Update_082511.... Howarth, Robert and Renee Santoro, Anthony Ingraffea. (2011). Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations. Climatic Change, vol 106(4): pg 679-690. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/. (with supplemental document) Jiang, Mohan and W Michael Griffin, Chris Hendrickson, Paulina Jaramillo, Jeanne VanMriesen, Aranya Venkatesh. (2011). Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Marcellus Shale Gas. Enironmental Research Letters, vol 6(3). Available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034014/media (with supplemental data). National Energy Technology Laboratory. (Oct. 2011). Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Natural Gas Extraction, Delivery and Electricity Production. National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NG-GHG-LCI.pdf Skone, Timothy. (May 2011) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction & Delivery in the United States. National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Presented at: Cornell University Lecture Series. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NG_LC_GHG_PRES_12MAY11.pdf ↩
5 Comments
Thanks for the feedback. The
Thanks for the feedback. The comments below all touch, in part, on the question of life-cycle greenhouse emissions from shale gas, which will be the starting point for WRI’s work on shale gas. There is broad agreement that available data on methane emissions from the natural gas supply chains (from production to delivery, throughout the country) are incomplete. Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, understanding these emissions is critical in understanding and addressing greenhouse gases in an economy that will increasingly depend on natural gas. In our study, we intend to focus on what is and is not known about those emissions and, more importantly, what can be done to minimize them. One outcome we are looking to achieve with this initial study is to facilitate broader adoption of best practices and available technologies for minimizing methane leakage.
Oh, and by the way, we don’t receive funding from Peabody. A list of our funders can be found at: http://www.wri.org/about/donors.
When was it that all the
When was it that all the leftwing enviros decided to become tools of the coal lobby? The bias of this writer is quite evident just looking at the studies she references to make her negative claims against shale gas. Prof. Howarth is a well known lackey for the northeastern coal lobby, and his study has been debunked very effectively by a number of real professionals in the field. Ditto for the Skone study, which was basically funded by the coal companies.
If these are the sources that WTI's "unbiased" pros are going to use, we all know the pre-determined outcome in advance, and WTI's "findings" will become just another tool in Big Coal's quiver.
How much is Peabody paying you folks? Just curious.
Gosh.... someone named DAVID
Gosh.... someone named DAVID -- lecturing us on BIAS and Pay offs!?!
From Houston no less!
Refreshing to see an
Refreshing to see an environmental organisation understanding both sides of the issue. The sustainability trilemma includes economic and social costs as well as carbon reduction. Shale cannot solve carbon issues alone, but with proper regulation it could entirely solve the first two. Shale gas could also provide the financial foundation to replace carbon, starting with coal.
To describe CO2 footprint of shale as a bone of contention overstates the debate. Basically it's Howarth 1, The Rest of he World 6, 7, or 8: Howarth says shale is dirtier than coal, everyone else says, as a forthcoming report from his own university describes it as "simply not plausible". There are people who believe the earth is flat, that evolution is wrong etc, etc, but they don't get column space.
Sure you'll hear from the Fox/Ruffalo tendency who overstate the dangers and wish to leave gas in the ground. They insist that there is proof of mass systemic poisoning without providing evidence of more than a handful of localised problems. Dimock, Pavilion and where else and where else for example? Inconvenience? Yes. Looming catastrophe? Certainly not.
Coal is the enemy and those who ignore that are enablers of carbon emissions.
Cleaner natural gas
Cleaner natural gas NOW?
Issues about fracking should be solved with appropriate regulations. Of course burning natural gas is much better than burning coal. I suspect the coal lobby is just trying to deter the inevitable switch to natural gas. Because of shale gas long-term contracts for natural gas are available.
There is another reality about renewables, primarily solar and wind, they cannot replace coal and natural gas generated electricity by any great amount. They are simply expensive supplements.
I'm following this guy in Austin, TX - Andrew West who has some technology to burn natural gas even cleaner (no NOX and 80% less CO2). It's an old technology called oxy-fuel where the natural gas is blended with pure oxygen. In the past it wasn't adopted because the oxygen was too expensive. He claims to make it affordable enough to produce electricity that's less than coal-generated electricity.
If I understand his math correctly, we can retrofit all coal and natural gas power plants (and many industrial boilers) economically, meaning the utilities could pay for it without an increase in the cost of electricity. The result would be the elimination of NOX and SOX and an 80% reduction of CO2. Solar and wind advocates can't make those claims. Despite spending $1 trillion in the last 10 years, solar and wind installations didn't even keep up with new demand. That means we made NO progress on reducing CO2 emissions.
Too much of the energy conversation seems to be "fossil fuels versus renewables" and we're missing the chance to make significant progress by simply cleaning up the burning of natural gas with oxygen. There's more, he also provides affordable nitrogen to the power plants for cooling so they no longer need to damage rivers, lakes and streams.
He has some other solutions, too. Agriculture and education included.
It's worth a look: http://www.solutioneur.com
Post new comment