Is shale gas a good thing?

[Dave2002]

My view is that overall shale gas is not a great thing, as it will increase carbon emissions if exploited in addition to oil and coal.
It's probably not good for the UK, but for the US and China it may actually help over the next decade or two, as if it temporarily replaces coal in power stations it should improve the emission situation as gas powered power stations are more efficient. If it's simply used as a fuel for heating it may be cleaner than coal, but the carbon emission reduction will be less significant.

[Ferretfancy]

My view is that overall shale oil is not a great thing, as it will increase carbon emissions if exploited in addition to oil and coal.
It's probably not good for the UK, but for the US and China it may actually help over the next decade or two, as if it temporarily replaces coal in power stations it should improve the emission situation as gas powered power stations are more efficient. If it's simply used as a fuel for heating it may be cleaner than coal, but the carbon emission reduction will be less significant.

Rather worse, I think. With present techniques of extraction it would appear that about 20% of the methane will be lost to the atmosphere, and since methane is much more efficient at producing global warming than CO2, this could be a disaster.

[Dave2002]

Rather worse, I think. With present techniques of extraction it would appear that about 20% of the methane will be lost to the atmosphere, and since methane is much more efficient at producing global warming than CO2, this could be a disaster.

That could be scary.

This from the US EPA - http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...gases/ch4.html

and this on GWP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

[Boilk]

It has already proved an environmental disaster in several communities in the US. Poor quality air, contamination of the water table, sick children and adults, etc. As usual it's a case of big money trampling over the little people in an effort to make easy money and reduce government imports of fuel.

The British govt is rolling out all the usual rhetoric: learnings from previous mistakes, higher safety levels than the US, and compensation for locals for the inconvenience (i.e. bribery, in plain English). And the extraction-costs-to-return ratio is relatively poor because you're drilling horizontally most of the time. Huge clusters of explosions below ground in an area will likely turn out to have more adverse repercussions than 'just' mini earthquakes.

[teamsaint]

it is a potential disaster, in every conceivable way.
On top of that , the decision making process is corrupt, but otherwise its a great idea.

[Dave2002]

Sorry about the heading - which should be "shale gas" rather than "shale oil". Looks like you understood what I intended anyway. Maybe I should ask ff to change it.

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/...cle/news/52902 - but this doesn't deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...uestion-answer This is a couple of years old and points out that the development in the US has been fairly unregulated. The methane release problem seems a major reason for not using this method, and that's not even considering the problems due to damage to water and soil.

In the last year or so shale gas seems to have been hyped up as being a good thing in some areas, but if the methane release problem is significant, which it appears to be, then the effect on greenhouse emissions could be truly disastrous. Potentially it could completely swamp any gains in greenhouse gas reduction due to other methods from the last few years.

[ahinton]

It doesn't especially surprise me that this issue has reared itself. I tend pretty much to agree with the thoughts that have been expressed about it here so far. I can understand the motivation for this "dash for shale" but that by no means justifies it; had major governments and industries invested far more in sustainable and renewable forms of energy over the years since the end of WWII, there would almost certainly have been no need for the current frantic Gadarene rush toward large-scale fracking operations. It will be dangerous enough politically when the outcome of this activity will have replaced a substantial proportion of the international market for oil but, whilst long-term investment in renewables would have had a similar consequence, it would at least not also have been a case of replacing one environmentally dangerous energy resource with another.

As it's far too late to be crying over spilt oil, however, the only question open now is, sadly, whether such activity is, in the short, medium and long term, likely to be any more dangerous and damaging than the continuing oil exploration, some of which it may eventually come to replace.

By the way, I think that it's possible to change the subject header from "oil" to "gas"!...

[Dave2002]

ah

I don't think it's too late to slow the exploitation of shale gas - though it may be difficult. The price of oil has dropped substantially recently, which I have been led to believe is due to the emergence of shale gas as an alternative, and the possibility that the US could have enough shale gas to power its operations for quite some time. Before ferret alerted me to the magnitude of the methane release problem I was beginning to accept the hype. Without that "minor" problem it may well have been a good way forward, but that to me seems to present an unacceptable level of risk.

[eighthobstruction]

It is just a few people rubbing their hands with glee seeing £'s , giving not a jot too public opinion, the environment....that's an absolute NO from me then....

[ahinton]

ah

I don't think it's too late to slow the exploitation of shale gas - though it may be difficult. The price of oil has dropped substantially recently, which I have been led to believe is due to the emergence of shale gas as an alternative, and the possibility that the US could have enough shale gas to power its operations for quite some time. Before ferret alerted me to the magnitude of the methane release problem I was beginning to accept the hype. Without that "minor" problem it may well have been a good way forward, but that to me seems to present an unacceptable level of risk.

It does to me as well; I fear, however, that the only circumstance likely to slow down shale gas exploration and exploitation is the "accidental" damage to which some of it might at some point give rise...

[ahinton]

It is just a few people rubbing their hands with glee seeing £'s , giving not a jot too public opinion, the environment....that's an absolute NO from me then....

Well, yes, but aren't the Chinese doing the same with the cheaply made solar panels with which they're tying to infiltrate the European market for such products by undercutting? In that particular, it doesn't matter what means of energy production one goes for; whilst some are far more sustainable and environmentally friendly than others (though none can ever be completely so), there's always the other kind of eco-warrior behind it all at all times - i.e. the economic one as distinct from the ecological one...

[Dave2002]

Well, yes, but aren't the Chinese doing the same with the cheaply made solar panels with which they're tying to infiltrate the European market for such products by undercutting? In that particular, it doesn't matter what means of energy production one goes for; whilst some are far more sustainable and environmentally friendly than others (though none can ever be completely so), there's always the other kind of eco-warrior behind it all at all times - i.e. the economic one as distinct from the ecological one...

For various reasons the Chinese are heavily into the production of PV solar panels. I don't see this as a particularly bad thing. One reason is the need for certain elements which I have been led to believe are more common or easier to extract in China than elsewhere. I don't know enough about the manufacturing costs and energy costs of PV panels - they're probably not insignificant, but nevertheless I think that PV panels do capture more solar energy and convert it to electricity during their lifetime than they consume in energy from all other sources. As yet PV panels are not very economic, and without the FiTs available in EU countries would probably not take off in Europe/UK. The hope, and I personally hope it is more than mere hope, is that in the longer term PVs will become both economic and also a useful generating source for electrical energy.

Nevertheless, it is clear that wind and tidal power have much greater short term potential. Wind power generation suffers from variability, but tidal power is fairly stable and reliable. The UK government has so far not encouraged tidal power generation, which is only feasible in relatively few geographically suitable sites, though there are a few around the UK. Wind power could be used to enhance the effectiveness of tidal power with a slight modification to a tidal power system by using excess/spare electricity [wind generated?] to pump water within a tidal generation system.

If shale gas or natural gas can be captured without the problems of methane release, then that could be a good thing. For electricity generation it is possible to get significantly greater efficiency than with a coal fired power station due to the high temperatures which are possible in the gas turbines used for generation. If the gas is simply used for heating, then that might still be useful, providing the possibility of methane leaks is minimised.

Methane emission rates for shale gas extraction would seem to be completely unacceptable - based on the 20% figure provided by ferret, given the very significant greenhouse effect from methane. Even 1% "loss" would be risky.

[ahinton]

For various reasons the Chinese are heavily into the production of PV solar panels. I don't see this as a particularly bad thing. One reason is the need for certain elements which I have been led to believe are more common or easier to extract in China than elsewhere. I don't know enough about the manufacturing costs and energy costs of PV panels - they're probably not insignificant, but nevertheless I think that PV panels do capture more solar energy and convert it to electricity during their lifetime than they consume in energy from all other sources. As yet PV panels are not very economic, and without the FiTs available in EU countries would probably not take off in Europe/UK. The hope, and I personally hope it is more than mere hope, is that in the longer term PVs will become both economic and also a useful generating source for electrical energy.

I share your hope and, even though the Chinese imports have so far made little impact on the market for solar PV installations in Britain, the prices charged for the equipment and installation of such systems have certainly fallen significantly over the past few years and may well continue to do so, especially is the become the darling of mass-market mass-production of the kind that determines that the greater the demand the more the price drops. As I've already indicated, however, had all of this been explored and exploited years ago - which it could have been - we wouldn't even be needing to contemplate shale gas exploration now. Likewise, had electric road vehicles been promoted - and we could well have been at or near the second-generation solar-boosted variety by now - emissions would have been slashed, air and noise pollution could have been reduced drastically and the reduction in moving parts would have resulted in less rapid obsolescence; all of us would have benefitted from that.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Tidal power could very effective in Britain as we have a much higher than average tidal range. Although I sympathise with the RSPB's reponse to to major tidal barrages, I would feel more persuaded if when an announcement of the arrival of the only known nesting place of the lesser-spotted winklepicker has been located in Tarbert, every birdwatcher from South East England jumps in a 4 8 4 and drives 400 in the vain hope of seeing it through a very long lens. This hardly environmentalism; it's gedonism.

[robk]

I find it depressing that as we start to experience the effects of global warming and the disproportionate impact on the poorest communities around the globe that the government encourages yet another process for exploiting non-renewable fossil fuel. I was rather hoping that the oil & gas would run out soon and we would be forced to make the investment in renewable energy. But it seems that our technological resourcefulness driven by economics is going to continue to take the easy route. I also feel that it is immoral for humans in the 20/21st centuries to use up everything the planet has, leaving future generations to suffer the consequences. Would it not make sense for the UK to become a leader in renewable energy solutions that could then be exported to Europe, China, India. This seems to be Germany’s policy. Fracking? No thanks.