tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post5393287587291953798..comments2023-06-16T06:17:50.870-07:00Comments on Science...well sort of: Science, well sort of…the final definitive answer on frackingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12864178199156310055noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-6653783152357706092013-08-19T16:45:41.030-07:002013-08-19T16:45:41.030-07:00Steve,
Just building on your comment...
Lower NG...Steve,<br /><br />Just building on your comment...<br /><br />Lower NG prices have reduced coal us in the US, but has simply shifted where the coal is burned. US coal industry is simply shipping the stuff over seas to China and other nations that need power, regardless of environmental toxicity. In the Pacific Northwest, the coal industry is trying to open up about 10 sea port coal terminals so they can export. Once China burns that, it ends up in the atmosphere and effects us as if we burned it here.<br /><br />Lower NG prices don't stop the coal industry, they just change the burn location.<br /><br />Also, keep in mind, and I know you know this, but it is worth repeating: The market price for NG and coal don't reflect the real cost. See my comment on Carbon Tax elsewhere in this blog post comment thread. NG is not as cheap is it appears. Even so, Solar PV is now cheaper than diesel in India, and falling fast. We have an honest accounting of real fossil fuel costs, and need to implement that on the world markets, to level the playing field.<br /><br />For an excellent example of how the fossil fuel industry is trying to mislead on the actual cost of renewables, see Amory Lovins analysis of fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at solar: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_07_31_debunking_renewables_disinformation_campaign<br /><br />Jay Kimball<br />8020 VisionJay Kimballhttp://8020vision.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-37685620199609155582013-08-19T16:27:18.033-07:002013-08-19T16:27:18.033-07:00Thanks Alex. I appreciate your sharing your thoug...Thanks Alex. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.<br /><br />I would suggest that the denial campaigns mounted by the fossil fuel industry are very relevant. Since you are posting a "Definitive Answer" on fracking, it would be good to know upon what sources your are forming your belief. As with Tobacco, asbestos, and climate change, etc. Many scientists supported the industry view, based upon bogus industry sponsored science. It would be good to know more about what sources lead you to your conclusion and why.<br /><br />For more on the conflict of interest between science and industry, here's one recent example: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/12/wake-scathing-review-fracking-report-university-texas-revises-conflict<br /><br />Jay Kimball<br />8020 VisionJay Kimballhttp://8020vision.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-4122465564976929052013-08-19T12:18:03.754-07:002013-08-19T12:18:03.754-07:00Alex,
Thank you for your reply to the reply, and f...Alex,<br />Thank you for your reply to the reply, and for furthering this conversation. Here is what I meant by gas "swamping" renewables. Most of the renewable power under development is pursuant to state renewable portfolio standards mandating a certain level of renewables use by a specified date. But most of the programs let the utilities off the hook if renewables are too expensive. Almost invariably, the benchmark is the price of natural gas. So downward pressure on gas prices puts the renewable energy programs at risk. The swamping I so poetically referred to is in terms of price competition and the viability of renewable energy mandates, rather than statistically-proven effects to date.<br /><br />Great question about whether I would worry less about the natural gas infrastructure commitment if fracking killed off the coal industry. Not an easy yes or no on that one. I lack confidence that our increased natural gas use is making a dramatic difference in GHG emissions. You mentioned that methane releases are a technologically-fixable problem. True, but so are other GHG releases. We can fix the problem by electrifying transportation and other oil consumption and switching to carbon-free power sources, or capturing carbon and sequestering it. It's just that we aren't doing those things in sufficient quantities. So should I be sanguine about the potential to eliminate methane leaks at wellheads and throughout the delivery system? If not, I am not sure how much better natural gas is than coal in terms of GHG emissions.<br /><br />No easy answers, just a lot of questions.<br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-27556208560842311402013-08-18T07:10:38.952-07:002013-08-18T07:10:38.952-07:00This is the existential question, and I have no id...This is the existential question, and I have no idea. Many whom I respect and trust say we have already driven off the cliff. Others say there is hope.<br /><br />The truth is likely an unknowable thing, given the complexity of the systems at work and their interactions.<br /><br />So in any case, there is no debate that we seek to turn the car around. The open question is whether the increased use of natural gas helps or slows that process. As I have narrowly framed the question, in my judgement presently it is helping on balance...but again, I do not argue that this is by itself sufficient to "stop the car".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08716429943841101396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-68147578313164159652013-08-18T06:56:36.436-07:002013-08-18T06:56:36.436-07:00Thanks so much Jay...good points. As I've said...Thanks so much Jay...good points. As I've said above, I'm with you on the need for carbon pricing...we need to do it. <br /><br />Re Gasland, I've purposely not watched it, just like I did not use industry sources for my research. <br /><br />And yes, the strategies employed by some, particularly climate denial interests, tracks closely with the those previously employed by the tobacco folks, but that is is a separate issue from the one I was exploring.<br /><br />Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08716429943841101396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-22791571248307726922013-08-18T06:47:59.862-07:002013-08-18T06:47:59.862-07:00Damn Steve, great points all. I have zero quarrel...Damn Steve, great points all. I have zero quarrel with your first point. In that perfect world we seek, we need to stop emitting carbon yesterday. But that simply will not happen, so we are left with what is possible. I purposely placed a narrow frame on my question, but one area I did not explore is the point you raise about added externalities of long term natural gas use. Let me ask you this, if that long term investment led to the end of the US coal industry, would you take that tradeoff? Again, all of the is is vexingly complex and there are no simple answers, but I think an analysis of your first point is worth doing.<br /><br />And I completely agree that it would be bad if natural has is "swamping" renewables...but is it? Any reliable cites for that?<br /><br />Finally, extra methane release is a technological and regulatory problem that is very fixable. And the latest research indicates overall it is much less than claimed or feared, but again, needs to be dealt with.<br /><br />Have look here for the EPA on GHG's over the last 10 years..http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html<br /><br />Again Steve, great points all...very much appreciate your input.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08716429943841101396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-32284139827355553212013-08-18T06:26:57.493-07:002013-08-18T06:26:57.493-07:00Hey China...my review was limited to the question ...Hey China...my review was limited to the question of increased natural gas from fracking...yes fracking has and will be used for oil extraction, so the extent to which this will lead to more carbon release, this is very bad. That's why I continue to advocate for pricing carbon and setting policies to create incentives for more zero carbon energy sources. But I think it would be a mistake to draw a straight line between fracking for natural gas in the US and Canadian Tar sands, and therefore Keystone XL...different issues in my view.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08716429943841101396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-89895124941041052062013-08-17T15:14:51.301-07:002013-08-17T15:14:51.301-07:00Sorry, i meant burning all that oil.
chinaSorry, i meant burning all that oil. <br />chinaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10450006450147603675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-22082347753922809202013-08-17T15:13:01.346-07:002013-08-17T15:13:01.346-07:00Alex, thanks for this piece of work, its been real...Alex, thanks for this piece of work, its been really interesting to read. My big question with your conclusion is the assumption that fracking will mainly be used to extract natural gas. All I've read about the tar sands in Alberta and the XL Pipeline implies that the goal is to extract oil, then send it by pipeline to the West Coast or to the Gulf to be processed. So no local fuel source there, plus burning all that coal seems like it won't be reducing carbon emissions much. Do I have these assumptions wrong?<br />ChinaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10450006450147603675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-27873869108002242152013-08-16T06:59:59.120-07:002013-08-16T06:59:59.120-07:00Thanks Jon...always value your perspective. In fa...Thanks Jon...always value your perspective. In fact in my midterm report I was in large part influenced by your point that we don't have enough information. On one level you are of course right, that we need more information to make better and more informed decisions. But I felt for the purpose of this exercise I needed to take what was available to me now. I did hedge to say my conclusion was based on current knowledge.<br /><br />Re your specific points, I would only say there seems to be as much data pointing the other way. Re methane release, the EPA is reducing it estimates,and I understand up upcoming studies will support that. Secondly, the consequence of methane release is better understood now, and contrary to earlier reports, is not as bad as had been feared. Finally, re the make up of the fracking liquids,I would point you to a new partnership in Pennsylvania that includes the Environmental Defense Fund and industry that seems to be a very good approach to dealing with your concerns...again,fracking per se is not perfectly safe and extra methane is bad, period. But in my judgement relative to burning coal and based on my admittedly amateur understanding of the data available today, I'm comfortable with my conclusion.<br /><br />Thanks again for taking the time to stick with me during this process...cites supporting my points below<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/epa-fracking-environment-climate-change_n_3174590.html<br /><br />http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/two-climate-analysts-fault-gas-leaks-but-not-as-a-big-warming-threat/<br /><br />http://green.tmcnet.com/topics/green/articles/2013/03/21/331433-passing-gas-new-center-certify-standards-shale-development.htmAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08716429943841101396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-64958548020792727292013-08-15T20:54:37.809-07:002013-08-15T20:54:37.809-07:00Alex,
How far away is that cliff? It seems to me ...Alex,<br /><br />How far away is that cliff? It seems to me we should be turning the car around towards solar, wind, Geothermal, tidal, etc.<br /><br />MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-53899924840528907162013-08-15T20:46:54.687-07:002013-08-15T20:46:54.687-07:00Hi Alex, I second Jonathan Koomey's comment an...Hi Alex, I second Jonathan Koomey's comment and would ad that, because of the risk, we should wait to frack until clean safe fracking fluids are in place. As you may know, several innovators have claimed clean safe fracking fluids, and have shown their execs drinking them at trade shows and such.<br /><br />Second, the market always favors the lowest cost sources of energy (coal). To accelerate the transition to renewables, we need to get a fair carbon tax on coal, gas and oil to make sure we are pricing a truer cost of emitting CO2. Something in the range of $45 to $90 per ton. As with the early days of tobacco industry, fossil fuel industry is privatizing their profit and passing the social costs on to us. That is not fair market policy. If they can't do business with an honest accounting,... We should take the carbon tax revenues and use that to accelerate the transition to clean safe renewable energy. Tax what kills us and incentivize what helps us.<br /><br />This makes strategic sense, since the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) is rising exponentially for fossil fuels, as we get into more and more exotic extraction methods. The easy stuff is gone. Yes, technology will find new ways to drill deeper and extract every last drop, but at what cost? As is often said, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. We don't want to extract every last drop. We need to transition to clean energy ASAP. We are long past the time to do that.<br /><br />For those readers interested in learning more about fracking, I encourage you to check out the documentaries Gasland and Gasland 2. Though less science centered, Gasland 2 especially does a nice job of citing state of the art references on well leakage and raising important questions worth looking at. Check out their excellent website for those citations. <br /><br />The fossil fuel industry (about 200 businesses) spends about $500 million lobby congress each year for favorable policy on all this. That represents about 9 minutes of their annual revenue. We have the best congress money can buy, and it is in all our interests to dig deep and make sure we err on the side of care for the health and wellbeing of our world. As with tobacco and climate change, many studies are funded by special fossil fuel interests, and it will take time for a clear picture to emerge on how fracking will impact our precious water and atmosphere. A good read on this is "Doubt is Their Product" an excellent look at how tobacco and toxic industries foster doubt to slow transitions to cleaner healthier public policies. Several of the PR guys who pioneered the big tobacco denial campaigns are now working for big oil and big coal.<br /><br />Jay Kimball<br />8020 Visionjaykimballhttp://8020vision.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-83485186240357743882013-08-15T16:39:59.359-07:002013-08-15T16:39:59.359-07:00Alex,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. A coupl...Alex,<br />Thank you for sharing your thoughts. A couple of things:<br />First, I like the "slowing the car to 50" metaphor, but wonder if it would be more accurate to consider "buying a new car that will only travel 50, putting resources into and emitting GHGs to make the car, building a new road for it to travel on, and entering into a 30 year lease, all knowing that slowing to 50 isn't good enough, anyway." For me, this is closer to the picture because of the tremendous capital investment in drilling equipment, pipelines, LNG terminals, power plants to burn the gas, etc. People don't like to strand their investments in these things and most of these things are built to last 30 or 40 years. We can't keep burning natural gas for that long and still save the planet the way we like to have it.<br /><br />Second, you have a good caveat above when you talk about locally sourced and used gas. But with the level of production we now can anticipate, pressure has been enormous to approve LNG export terminals. LNG has a much higher carbon footprint than domestically-produced and used gas. And then there is the fracking-derived gas that isn't being used at all. Look, for instance, at the fracking sites in North Dakota, with oil being the target. Shameful amounts of gas are being flared and (at least as I have heard - no citation) apparently not burned very well, so that in addition to a tremendous amount of wasted CO2, there are also methane releases occurring.<br /><br />The third of my couple of things: artificially cheap gas is swamping renewables, making it that much harder to invest in infrastructure that will avoid GHG releases. I say artificially cheap because externalities are not included in the producer's cost or the consumer's price.<br /><br />Finally, the most recent research I read about found disturbingly high methane levels in the air over one drilling site. Not a scientifically-significant sample, but certainly a red flag.<br /><br />I have enormous respect for the exercise you have undertaken and appreciate the opportunity to chime in.<br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4461967048420881307.post-49920757590179275472013-08-15T09:59:52.270-07:002013-08-15T09:59:52.270-07:00Alex,
I think the correct answer to your question...Alex,<br /><br />I think the correct answer to your question is "it's too soon to tell". You needn't come to a firm conclusion before all the data are in, and we're just now collecting better data on leakage. These new data show high leakage rates (http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/07/oops-methane-leakage-from-fracked-wells-alarmingly-high/)<br />What you can say is that we need to know more to answer the question you asked, but can also start to measure, regulate, and require disclosure of various heretofore unknown things (like leakage and the contents of fracking fluids, which some companies claim as a trade secret--sorry, you shouldn't be allowed to keep as a trade secret poisons that could destroy underground aquifers forever. That's a nasty externality if ever I saw one.).<br /><br />The fact that the industry is doing everything possible to prevent people with direct knowledge of the harm fracking is doing from saying anything about it (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/02/2401591/frack-gag-for-kids/) should give you pause as well. Lots of what we'd need to know to answer your question is simply not known at this point--more investigations are needed.<br /><br />So I think you have jumped the gun here.<br /><br />JonJonathan Koomeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13831066041906698026noreply@blogger.com