For Frack's Sake...The Green Argument for Fracking

Generali

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/the-green-side-of-fracking-20130417-2hzb9.html

Against all expectations, US emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, since peaking in 2007, have fallen by 12 per cent as of 2012, back to 1995 levels. The primary reason, in a word, is “fracking”. Or, in 11 words: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to recover deposits of shale gas.

No other factor comes close to providing a plausible explanation. Unlike the European Union, the US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, in which participating countries committed to cut CO2 emissions by roughly 5 per cent, relative to 1990 levels, by 2012.


Nor is America’s continued emissions reduction a side effect of lower economic activity: While the US economy peaked in late 2007, the same time as emissions, the recession ended in June 2009 and GDP growth since then, though inadequate, has been substantially higher than in Europe. Yet US emissions have continued to fall, while EU emissions began to rise again after 2009.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/the-green-side-of-fracking-20130417-2hzb9.html

Interesting. I met a scientist from the US while I was on holiday last year and he was involved in regulating fracking. His view was all of the problems of the industry could be managed by knowing what you're getting into and regulating the heck out of it. He said - and please call me out on this if anyone has evidence otherwise as I'd like to know - that initially there was not sufficient knowledge and that's where the problems arose. However the US now knows the industry really well and they know what to regulate for.

smartn

It's an interesting article. Would be nice to see if the UK can soon gain some benefits from fracking, we could sure do with it.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting. I met a scientist from the US while I was on holiday last year and he was involved in regulating fracking. His view was all of the problems of the industry could be managed by knowing what you're getting into and regulating the heck out of it. He said - and please call me out on this if anyone has evidence otherwise as I'd like to know - that initially there was not sufficient knowledge and that's where the problems arose. However the US now knows the industry really well and they know what to regulate for.

I guess the best thing is to make it so expensive to pollute it's worth doing things properly!

Coal mine pollutes (releasing mercury for example) and oil obviously does. Maybe fracking is a good next step for producing a better fuel, if perhaps not the best.

Often good enough is good enough. Perfection costs too much.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/the-green-side-of-fracking-20130417-2hzb9.html

Is it really against all expectations though ?

If you replace coal with gas, thats what will happen (coal generates twice the CO2 per Kwh as gas)

Shale gas means that US exports of coal have doubled (as the price has fallen) arguably pushing pollution to other places.

For example Coal use in the UK power stations went up 31% last year, partly as they rush to use allocated hours before they close.

http://www.platts.com/newsfeature/2012/coaltransport/map2

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Is it really against all expectations though ?

If you replace coal with gas, thats what will happen (coal generates twice the CO2 per Kwh as gas)

Shale gas means that US exports of coal have doubled (as the price has fallen) arguably pushing pollution to other places.

For example Coal use in the UK power stations went up 31% last year, partly as they rush to use allocated hours before they close.

http://www.platts.com/newsfeature/2012/coaltransport/map2

Perhaps the problem, as discussed in the article, is that European Governments are preventing fracking.

ILW

Lets just use what is cheapest and most available. Then tell all the Greenies to f*** off.

michaels

When you have huge tracts of unpopulated countryside and in many areas excess water supplies then the risks are lower than in an overpopulated country with water supplies under pressure in most areas...

I believe the US also Fracks for oil in some remote states and flare of the gas which produces a higher energy use signature than a large city because the gas price is so low it is cheaper to burn it off than put in the infrastructure to bring it to market.

DiggerUK

Because no state that signed up to anti emission targets can extricate themselves from the agreements they signed, and the subsidies they will pay, the cost of energy is guaranteed to be extortionately high.

As we have seen with Hinkley Point's renewal, the companies are wise to this, so they are going to make the state pay through the nose to construct, and then give guaranteed prices afterwards to supply.
No need to make this up.

Fracking is going to happen because it's the only deal on the table the government has.... and those frackers know it, and will charge accordingly.
..._

kabayiri

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting. I met a scientist from the US while I was on holiday last year and he was involved in regulating fracking. His view was all of the problems of the industry could be managed by knowing what you're getting into and regulating the heck out of it. He said - and please call me out on this if anyone has evidence otherwise as I'd like to know - that initially there was not sufficient knowledge and that's where the problems arose. However the US now knows the industry really well and they know what to regulate for.

Private Eye used to relay the usual horror stories which developed into urban myth in the US - eg flames coming out of the water taps in domestic homes.

Of course there are risks in any energy source.

There are also risks based on relying on Middle East and Russia for gas.

I know which I'd rather face.

ILW

kabayiri wrote: »

Private Eye used to relay the usual horror stories which developed into urban myth in the US - eg flames coming out of the water taps in domestic homes.

Of course there are risks in any energy source.

There are also risks based on relying on Middle East and Russia for gas.

I know which I'd rather face.

We have millions of tons of coal. Lets start using that rather than relying on imported fuel.