Some oppose shale gas because it is a fossil fuel, a source of carbon dioxide. Some are concerned by accounts of the fresh water it needs, by flaming faucets, by leaked “fugitive methane”, by pollution of the ground with fracking fluid and by damaging earthquakes. Although I believe that global warming is real, caused by humans, and a threat to our future, these concerns about shale gas are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation such as the controversial but ultimately positive developments in Illinois.
Shale gas can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce a deadly pollution known as particulate matter. Particulate matter is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers, referred to as PM 2.5, are believed to be the most dangerous of these particles as they can lodge deeply into the lungs. Greenhouse warming is widely acknowledged as a serious long-term threat, but PM2.5 is currently harming more people. PM 2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year, including roughly 75,000 in the U.S.
This air pollution has been largely ignored because PM2.5 was an unrecognized danger until recently; only in 1997 did it become part of the US National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has established that compared to coal, shale gas results in a 400- fold reduction of PM2.5, a 4,000-fold reduction in sulphur dioxide, a 70-fold reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx), and more than a 30-fold reduction in mercury.
As both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the development and utilization of shale gas, shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible. Environmentalists should recognize the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.
Should environmentalists support fracking? Can shale gas limit air pollution? Please share your views.
For more information on this topic, please see my report “Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking”
Professor Muller makes an eloquent case for his views. He tends to be optimistic about what can be done to reduce the environmental risks from fracking. He also deprecates the… Read more »
It is difficult to apply the precautionary principle because there are conflicting dangers. Certainly the danger of air pollution is immediate and evident. In China alone, over one million people… Read more »
I agree that natural gas is a short-term solution to ameliorate the particle pollution problem in China (from burning coal). US shale gas and building LNG terminals to export to… Read more »
Prof. Richard Muller, University of California, is right: wherever oil and coal is used don’t overlook that air pollution from shale (and conventional) gas is a lot less (pl see… Read more »
Compared to coal, natural gas is a better fuel. Aside from significantly less carbon, natural gas has no heavy metals (of which mercury is the only regulated one), no hormone-disruptors… Read more »
Of course natural gas is far preferable to coal, but it must be used carefully. Methane is something we want to keep out of the atmosphere, so we need regulations… Read more »
Fracking does not require fresh water; it can be done using brine, and brine is available at most locations where fracking is done. The US is gradually switching away from… Read more »
The research reported this week (and first reported several years ago) says that we have past a tipping point with respect to some West Antarctic glaciers and they are proceeding… Read more »
The “tipping point” you refer to for the Antarctic Ice sheet was published (Science, Vol 344, p375-378) with the following title: “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse POTENTIALLY Under Way …” (emphasis… Read more »
The original reports from 2010 (see link) say that the Pine Island Glacier alone could add 12 cm to SLR in 100 years. Ok, “potentially”. If something could “potentially” kill… Read more »
I agree with Mr. Sklar on most of what he says, but I believe he is overly concerned about methane leakage. It is true that methane is a much more… Read more »
I’m sure you are aware that other studies show that the EPA has significantly underestimated the release of methane: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/10/1316546111 While carbon emissions in US are declining by some estimates,… Read more »
We can certainly stop imports of fuel to China and elsewhere in the developing world, but that could slow their economic growth and lead them to use even dirtier forms… Read more »
When you say “NG is far superior to coal”, what do you mean from a climate perspective? The life cycle studies I have read show that NG has about 75%… Read more »
By “far superior” I mean that it emits half to one-third of the greenhouse gases of the coal it replaces. That means that instead of 30 to 50 years before… Read more »
Richard: I see where the source of our disagreement comes from. It might be true that NG would be a good alternative to coal if climate change wasn’t a clear… Read more »
Unfortunately, renewables are cost competitive with coal only if you increase the cost of coal by including the externalities, e.g. through a carbon tax or through subsidies for renewables. The… Read more »
Richard: You are correct that “The problem with externalities is that the developing world can’t afford to pay them“. However, the funny thing about externalities is that you have to… Read more »
Mr. Miller, You are right that payments for externalities are inevitable, but alas, they can be deferred, and that is what is happening. When you say solar is on a… Read more »
Richard: You are describing the problem… short term interest will lead to long term suffering. Yes, I agree. That is the problem. The question is how do implement policies that… Read more »
Fee and dividend is not going to work. Imagine complete success: fee and dividend eliminates coal. Then there is no money to distribute to the poor people who are paying… Read more »
Richard: I think it gets back to the point I made earlier. You seem to think that climate change is not a clear and present danger and that we have… Read more »
As many have mentioned already, natural gas burns much cleaner than coal. I would much rather have natural gas as the base load than coal. The question of whether or… Read more »
Prof. Muller, Thank you for the well prepared posting. Especially the discussion of methane leaks. I would add that no commercial enterprise wants to accept methane leaks. Substantial leaks will… Read more »
Why don’t we all convert to natural gas autos? In San Francisco, half of the taxis already are converted. They did that to save money; the taxi drivers, for the… Read more »
I am sure you are aware of the study that shows that CNG is not a good fuel for vehicles from a climate perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/study-finds-methane-leaks-negate-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas.html?_r=0 Electric vehicles are superior to… Read more »
The article that says that natural gas vehicles are bad for the environment is guilty of what I call “pessimism bias”, and also “optimism bias.” It assume that the leakage… Read more »
Dr. Muller, Again, you present the facts in a clear rational manner. Thank You! I have but little to add. Regarding Tesla and the electrics: They are likely less efficient than nat… Read more »
Jack: Electric vehicles are inherently twice as efficient as internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles because ICE vehicles loose about half their energy to heat (the combustion part). Of course, centralized… Read more »
If I were a Tea Partier I would say …”see they don’t really agree on anything”. Instead I marvel at how complicated the science of living systems really is and… Read more »
Some environmental organizations lump all fossil fuels together under the label “they cause the problem.” Such simplistic approaches make appeal to the public easier, but to solve the problem we… Read more »
Someone much older than me told me a long while back that gasoline pumps had a 50 ft hose to protect the pump from possibly blowing up from a possible… Read more »
You are right that particulants are a terrible problem and that is a very good reason to phase out coal, particulants and the other toxic emissions like mercury. You are… Read more »
I agree with virtually everything you say. But on one point, cost, we have to recognize that it is a very important issue for China. I do not believe they… Read more »
I am glad to hear that we agree on so much of the big picture. That said, China has a ton of resources that can move their economy forward with… Read more »
The questions posed by Professor Miller have sparked a lively discussion. For environmentalists to support the development of shale gas, there seem to be three issues. First, can… Read more »
David, You seem to minimize the operational and economic problems that wind and solar maycause for grid operators. As you know, the grid is not permitted to curtail the availability of electric… Read more »
Thank you Jack for your comments, which further detail why electricity from wind and solar is currently more expensive than power from natural gas. For most consumers, electricity pricing… Read more »
Muller makes a valuable contribution here to the debate about fracking and natural gas by emphasizing that the overall environmental impact of using natural gas for power generation is far… Read more »
From a short term view it may be viewed as virtuous to displace coal with natural gas to make electricity. But natural gas is both a premium fuel, critical for… Read more »
Charlie, The advocates of NG are taking the long term view. Methane is one of the most abundant products on earth. We have at least 100 years worth of economically… Read more »