Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cornell Study Shows Shale Gas Has Much Larger Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Coal and Oil

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Nathanael Donating Member (375 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:28 AM
Original message
Cornell Study Shows Shale Gas Has Much Larger Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Coal and Oil
A forthcoming study from Cornell University may dash the growing reputation natural gas has acquired as the "clean" burning fossil fuel.

According to research conducted by Robert Howarth, Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea, greenhouse gas emissions produced by natural gas derived from unconventional sources, primarily hydraulic fracturing, are significantly higher than that of conventional gas, coal, and oil.

Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is a significant component of natural gas. The authors estimate that between 30% and 200% more methane is emitted from shale gas produced from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, wells. Hydraulic fracturing requires injecting pressurized water into rock formations to crack them open and harvest the gas encased within them. The majority of the methane escapes in the water as it flows back out, and then later, when the rock is further drilled open to extract the gas reserves.

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/cornell-study-shows-shale-gas-has-much-larger-greenhouse-gas-emissions-coal-and-oil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Presuming it's accurate, this argues strongly for heavier focus on a full renewable portfolio
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 10:42 AM by kristopher
The drive for NG is largely based on the idea that it is easy to swap from coal/nuclear to natgas. That drives expansion of demand.
The more effective strategy is to press even harder for wind, geothermal, solar, and wave/current/tidal deployment. That relegates natural gas to a diminishing roll of shaping load around the profile of the renewable mix.

There are enough dispatchable alternatives in the renewable grab-bag to replace all fossil and nuclear.

We also need a far better accounting of the full life-cycle emissions of not only natural gas, but nuclear; and we need it yesterday. This isn't the time for screwing around with bad data.

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-mod-energy-review-2009-SF_revised2.pdf

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-see-2009-data-trimming-climate-nuclear-fulltext.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC