Slashdot Mirror


The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

Lasrick writes Energy expert H-Holger Rogner walks through the realities of the shale-gas boom, the 'game-changer' that has brought about a drop in energy prices and greatly reduced carbon emissions. But despite the positive impact on carbon emissions, Rogner points out that the cheap gas brought about by fracking shale may already be affecting investments into renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency by offering more attractive investment opportunities: 'At today's prices of $4 to $5 per million British thermal units, gas-fired electricity holds a definite competitive advantage over new nuclear construction and unsubsidized renewables.' But natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide. 'A much higher share of natural gas in the energy mix would eventually raise emissions again, especially if gas not only displaces coal but also non-fossil energy sources. Moreover, methane, the chief component of natural gas, is itself a heat-trapping greenhouse gas with 25 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide. If total methane leakage—from drilling through end use—is greater than about 4 percent, that could negate any climate benefits of switching from coal and oil to gas.'

2 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A Bridge Fuel... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    What kind of idiot thought we'd reduce climate change (which most scientists agree has something to do with carbon released from fossil fuel production) by switching to another fossil fuel that still emits carbon when burned?

    The reasoning is that natural gas releases less carbon than coal, so if we switch from coal to natural gas, then we'll reduce climate change. I do not have the information necessary to determine if that is a correct line of reasoning or not.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Re:A Bridge Fuel... by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reasoning is that natural gas releases less carbon than coal, so if we switch from coal to natural gas, then we'll reduce climate change. I do not have the information necessary to determine if that is a correct line of reasoning or not.

    Well, natural gas/methane is CH4 - there are 4 hydrogens per carbon. As you start going to longer chained hydrocarbons, the ratio between hydrogen to carbon goes from 4:1 to 2:1 because adding another carbon adds only 2 more hydrogens. Octane, in gasoline, comprises of 8 carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms - 2 per carbon plus 2 more at the ends.