Nick Grealy
Administrator of NaturalGas2.0, NoHotAir and ShaleGasInfo Blogs
Shale gas deniers abound among those eager to classify global warming skeptics as climate change deniers. Yet, the odds are remarkably similar, says Nick Grealy.
How often have we heard that 97% of climate scientists agree man made warming is real? Similarly, a very high percentage of scientists see shale as a safe energy option. Yet many who see 3% of scientists as climate “deniers,” remain perfectly happy to use Single Study Syndrome when it goes the other way.
Shale Gas Deniers Frustrated by the Science
A classic example is when we hear so often how shale gas is worse than coal
If you’re a politician, science is a bitch; it resists spin. And a new set of studies — about, of all things, a simple molecule known as CH4— show that President Obama’s climate change strategy is starting to unravel even as it’s being knit. To be specific: Most of the administration’s theoretical gains in the fight against global warming have come from substituting natural gas for coal. But it looks now as if that doesn’t really help.
Looks now? This is an ancient story arising from how Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University state so much methane escapes during the gas life cycle of production through transportation that the GHG potential ends up no different from coal – and possibly even worse. The story has been around since 2011, the stone age of shale, but Bill McKibben (who has been an ally of Howarth from way back), is today trying to gee up any waverers within the green base who may be tempted to see natural gas as one part of an all of the above energy solution.
Video of Robert Howarth hanging with other fractivists and wearing a
“Drilling Is Not Safe” button in 2010. Some independent scientist!
Hat tip: The Lonely Conservative
In the shale marathon, Howarth is an early doubter, (and visitor to Brussels the same year), but he has well financed legs.The “shale is no better than coal” storyline is reflected in the “let’s stop wasting our time and head straight to renewables position” of more extreme US, and almost all mainstream EU, greens. Both groups have mutated from being “unconventional” shale gas opponents to fighting any natural gas at all, as the unconventional becomes the new normal of gas production.
But, three years later, what is the scientific consensus behind the theory? Howarth and Ingraffea and a handful of new allies, continue to promote the theory, but it’s also been widely studied elsewhere. The thing about peer-reviewed reports such as the one just out from the University of Manchester is that the process means all science must be considered. All of these studies propose that using natural gas in electricity generation remains far cleaner than coal. Yet, since it doesn’t support the narrative, few if any people have heard of the other side. This list is from the Manchester study:
M. Jiang, W.M. Griffin, C. Hendrickson, P. Jaramillo, J. Van Briesen, A. Venkatesh
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas Environ Res Lett, 6 (2011), p. 034014
A. Burnham, J. Han, C.E. Clark, M. Wang, J.B. Dunn, I. Palou-Rivera
Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, natural gas, coal, and petroleumEnviron Sci Technol, 46 (2011), pp. 619–627
N. Hultman, D. Rebois, M. Scholten, C. Ramig
The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation Environ Res Lett, 6 (2011), p. 044008
J. Logan, G. Heath, J. Macknick, E. Paranhos, W. Boyd, K. Carlson
Natural gas and the transformation of the U.S. energy sector: electricity
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado (2012)
F. O’Sullivan, S. Paltsev
Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gas emissions Environ Res Lett, 7 (2012), p. 04403
T. Stephenson, J.E. Valle, X. Riera-Palou
Modeling the relative GHG emissions of conventional and shale gas production Environ Sci Technol, 45 (2011), pp. 10757–10764
C.L. Weber, C. Clavin
Life cycle carbon footprint of shale gas: review of evidence and implications Environ Sci Technol, 46 (2012), pp. 5688–5695
D.J.C. MacKay, T.J. Stone
Potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with shale gas extraction and use
Department of Energy & Climate Change, London (2013)
A.T. Dale, V. Khanna, R.D. Vidic, M.M. Bilec
Process based life-cycle assessment of natural gas from the Marcellus shale
Environ Sci Technol, 47 (2013), pp. 5459–5466
Y. Chang, R. Huang, R.J. Ries, E. Masanet
Shale-to-well energy use and air pollutant emissions of shale gas production in China Appl Energy, 125 (2014), pp. 147–157
S. Jenner, A.J. Lamadrid
Shale gas vs. coal: policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States Energy Policy, 53 (2013), pp. 442–45
D.T. Shindell, G. Faluvegi, D.M. Koch, G.A. Schmidt, N. Unger, S.E. Bauer
Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions Science, 326 (2009), pp. 716–718
S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt (Eds.), et al.,
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
L.M. Cathles, L. Brown, M. Taam, A. Hunter
A commentary on “the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea Climatic Change, 113 (2012), pp. 525–535
L. Stamford, A. Azapagic
Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK Int J Energy Res, 36 (2012), pp. 1263–1290
I would also add a study from the EU in 2012, that the Manchester study overlooked and the recent study of studies from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.
Shale Gas Deniers Odds Are Longer Than 17:1
If we include the last two for those keeping score, it’s 17 to 1 disagreeing with Howarth and Ingraffea’s methane theories.Thats 94.5% of scientists agreeing to various extents that natural gas and/or shale gas is less damaging to CO2 levels than coal. That’s mighty close to the 97% level cited as inarguable truth standard by those who believe in anthropogenic global warming. If one factors in that most of the above studies have multiple authors, the 97% threshold of scientists is easily broached.
I know I antagonize some readers by my support of climate science, but I have to say that if 97% of specialists say there is a problem, I tend to go with the overwhelming majority. I recently had a medical diagnosis that while most likely a long way from killing me is worrying nevertheless. I didn’t ask the experts what treatment was recommended by the 3 or 5% minority. I certainly didn’t tell the doctors that I’d like to seek the advice of a fashion designer or any rock stars either.
But if 94.5% of specialists say in the Methane/Coal field, that shale is better than coal, why do 97% of Greens disbelieve them? The key reason is no one points it out to them.
Green’s aren’t stupid, but neither are their leaders. Green antipathy to gas is almost entirely the result of fears natural gas makes green technology unworkable. That was ridiculous a few years ago and much more so today following the huge advances in renewable technology and the resultant decline in cost. After all, where greens are right, if occasionally over-enthusiastically self-deluded, is where solar, storage, wind and efficiency are becoming more successful each day.
The problem lies in that the back up fuel of the renewable revolution is coal. Denmark for example has wind power of 47%, yet increased emissions by almost 7% in 2013, as coal was used to back it up. Germany is building coal plants.
Green leaders seem to be more in love with the technology than the actual task of cutting CO2. Thats sometimes because some have some green dogs in the game, a fact they are loath to report to followers who see them as 100 % altruistic. I have no problem with Dale Vince of Ecotricity or Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century making money out of renewables, even when much of their income directly comes from subsidies. Early adopters deserve a certain amount of protection from market forces. I do object when they lose sight of the target: It’s CO2 targets, not technology ones, global issues, not personal gain.
The gas industry in most consuming countries is happy to concede very large portions of generation to renewables. After all, in both the US and EU, it’s only one third of gas use. But enabling both coal and traditional gas producing countries who don’t hold our best interests at heart instead of domestic natural gas is not logical. That’s why the story of the 94.5% needs to be told just as much as the story of the 97%. If the latter is a valid arguing point, so must the former.
Check out what else is new at NaturalGasNow today!
While you’re at it, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Linked-In!
Nick, no one disputes the chemistry of natural gas vs coal. For the same amount of heat, natural gas yields 44% less CO2 compared to coal. That’s good.
Most natural gas plants are newer than coal plants, therefore they are more efficient at turning that heat into something more useful like electricity. That’s good too.
The problem has to do with the natural gas that doesn’t make it to the customer either due to flaring or leakage. Unburned methane, CH4, the primary constituent of natural gas, like CO2, is a climate-altering greenhouse gas. But it’s far worse that CO2 – 72 times worse. There is no scientific debate on this – it’s a known fact varying only slightly depending on the time frame analyzed
The debate is over the amount of methane that is released in the natural gas supply chain. It doesn’t take much to negate the 44% CO2 advantage.
So let’s be clear, the scientific basis for the concern is solid. Whether natural gas is better for the climate than coal depends entirely on these fugitive emissions. Howarth’s 2014 paper includes many references on measured levels and he was able to refine the conclusions of his earlier studies. Everyone seems to admit that more data, more modeling, and more study is needed. No doubt the answer will depend on where the drilling/fracking is done and who is doing it. To some people that is not satisfactory and I’d argue that until there is a full understanding of the climate consequence we should be more cautious.
In the meantime, I suggest you ratchet back the use of the term “clean.”
Clifford: are you selectively ignoring the words “life cycle emissions” in those 17 studies? Your entire argument ignores Grealy’s central point. But I want everyone to take note that, in classic “green” fashion, Clifford is also trying to shift the goal posts by qualifying the gas plants as “new” plants in an attempt to scare the public about their future efficiency and cleanliness. It is clear he is bothered by someone calling him out as a denier.
Scott, no, I think you have either misread or misunderstood. Nick’s central point is that natural gas burns cleaner than coal. No one disputes that – it’s 44% cleaner based on CO2 alone.
My point about “new plants” is that if expanded use of natural gas is via combined-cycle plants, then the advantage is even greater compared to legacy coal plants. However, if simple gas turbine plants are used their poor efficiency (~30%) negates some of the advantages.
Nick is trying to refute Howarth’s point that fugitive emissions can render natural gas worse on the climate than coal. That theory is all about the global warming potential of CH4 which again no one disputes. So the answer lies in how much is lost between the drill site and the customer. I find Howarth’s data quite convincing and supported by many independent studies.
You are the one doing the misinterpretation here. Practically every title Grealy cites references “Greenhouse gas” emissions. Since, as you note, everyone knows CH4 is a GHG, the studies probably account for fugitive emissions. It is funny to me that you have to deny that to keep living your Fractivist fantasy.
Nick I agree with your basic point but you did not take it far enough. Science says that climate change is real; that gas usage is better than coal; and fracking fluids 5000 feet down do not migrate to the surface ground water. However, both sides pick their data. People claiming that science shows global warming is occuring ignore science that says that fracking is safe. However, don’t forget that those claiming that science shows fracking to be safe ignore science that claims that global warming is happening. Seems that we all pick the science that confirms our pre-existing cultural worldview — that includes pro-gas people. I think that belief in climate change strengthens my belief in using gas — while working hard to minimize methane escapes into the atmosphere.
I believe that’s Nick’s point.
Tom, you are right. I stopped reading at the list of studies, thinking that the article had ended. I re-checked the article, read that section, and he does make that point. I apologize.
Pingback: Global Warming Brought on by Hydroelectric Power?Natural Gas Now
Pingback: Global Warming Brought on by Hydroelectric Power? | ShaleNOW