Get it right on gas

This link is a couple of days old now - but that's OK, because this came out the same day that Curiosity landed on Mars.  So it was a bit overshadowed, you might say.

Friedman wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about the importance of the natural gas boom, and the need to get it right.  In it he argues points that I've put forward before, that is that a natural gas boom, as is currently happening in the U.S., is good for the economy and the environment - but only if done right.

Good for the economy because this is "home grown" energy, mined from U.S. lands, and it will create jobs in the gas industry as well as other industries that could make the switch from coal or oil, such as the automotive industry.  Switching away from oil is also beneficial for our national security, since many of the nations that benefit from huge oil prices are also ones that don't care for the U.S. very much.

Good for the environment is a bit of a harder sell, because natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and therefore CO2 is released as a product of combustion.  CO2 being the leading cause of climate change, the continued release of CO2 is still problematic.  However, natural gas releases much less CO2 than coal, and so therefore represents a reduction in the amount of CO2 we emit.  Combining that reduction with other reductions, such as increased energy efficiency and more reliance on non-fossil fuel energy sources, really gets us headed in the right direction of emitting less CO2.  One problem is that methane itself, the principal constituent of natural gas, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.  Leaky gas pipes, therefore, could potentially offset the gain by reduce CO2.  Therefore we need to continue to build a culture of good stewardship of our natural resources, and reduce waste by fixing things like leaky pipes.  It isn't just regulations and laws and infrastructure that we need to change; we need to continue to change hearts & minds as well toward stewardship of our planet.  Again, however, the point that Friedman makes is that the gas boom is a good thing if we do it right.  If we don't, then problems like leaky gas pipes could possibly offset the gains.
Another perspective on the environment is the amount of other toxic materials often released with the burning of coal.  Toxic metals such as mercury are released when coal is burned, but they are not found in natural gas.  Switching from coal to natural gas therefore reduces the amount of these pollutants.  It also reduces the mining of coal, which is the cause of mountain top removal in my beloved Appalachia.
Another con argument for the natural gas boom is the process of fracking - again, the point being made by Friedman that this gas boom is only beneficial if we do it right.  We need proper procedures, good engineering practices, sound regulations, and proper enforcement.  These are all problems of political will and of engineering, and they are not at all problems that we should not be able to overcome.  After all, we just dropped a mini-cooper sized mobile chemistry laboratory on Mars - this problem should be relatively easy in comparison!
Lastly, I want to again stress that natural gas should be seen as a transition fuel from the dirtier fossil fuels toward cleaner sources of energy, eventually eliminating our use of them in favor of fully renewable sources.  But that process is going to take a long time.  In the mean time, we can make some positive gains.

More on "fracking"

Building on my post from yesterday, today Forbes posted an article where a prominent natural gas industry leader has spoken out for more regulation over the industry.  This article high-lights one of the points I was making yesterday - "fracking" and "irresponsible fracking" are not the same thing.  It is the latter that we need to eliminate.  The article gives some good background on the development of modern hydraulic fracturing of shale to release natural gas, which is informative.  It follows the work of George Mitchell, who established some of the modern techniques that are leading to a boom in natural gas across the U.S.  He's quoted in the article as saying "The administration is trying to tighten up controls.  I think it's a good idea.  They should have very strict controls.  The Department of Energy should do it."  He goes on to say "Because if they don't do it right, there could be trouble.  There are good techniques to make it safe that should be followed properly."  In other words, it is not "fracking" itself that is a problem, but rather irresponsible fracking.  I completely agree.

Some of the comments suggest that this big-money corporate guy is just saying this to stomp out some competition, and that increased regulations will hurt the smaller drilling companies.  I don't see any reason why small drilling companies should be able to cause pollution problems just so they can compete with the larger firms.  We need to have laws in our lands that clearly make it a crime to cause pollution, and we need to have agencies that are equipped with the tools they need to adequately enforce the law.  That's where proper regulations come in.

natural gas, energy, "fracking", & climate change

Two webblurbs last week caught my eye.  In the first one from Boulder Weekly entitled "Fracking out of a recession", the author makes the case that the natural gas boom has the chance of bringing a number of U.S. states out of recession.  "Fracking" is a term that's stirred up a lot of controversy over the past year, but I think much of that is overblown.  Hydraulic fracturing of rocks deep underground through pressurized wells is a process that's been used for a number of decades to release more oil & gas from rocks than is otherwise possible.  Hydraulic fracturing also occurs naturally when fluid pressure in small cracks in rocks increases high enough to overcome the stresses holding rocks together.  To be sure there are some ways that this process could cause environmental problems.  The fluids used in the process are no longer as benign as they used to be, and care must be made that they aren't dumped or spilled at the surface & cause contamination.  That is a problem that can be solved by having 1) political will to make good laws against polluting, i.e., requiring corporations to take care of their messes; and 2) having an oversight agency that has the resources necessary to enforce the law.  There is also the concern that the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing could contaminate ground water sources.  I don't want to go into this in detail, but I think this is not likely to be a major issue in most places.  It certainly could be in some areas, but overall the layers of rock that are intended to be fractured to release resources are not usually close-by to fresh-water aquifers.  But again, that's an issue that could be solved by appropriate laws and appropriate enforcement of those laws.  In short, I'm definitely not "against fracking".  I'm against irresponsible fracking.  I generally agree with the main points of the BW article, but the article I'm referring to makes too little of the need for responsibility and proper oversight in this business.  I think the tone & attitude toward the environmental problems is too dismissive.  Pollution problems need to be taken seriously, but all too often in our society the positions are polarizing: fracking is the solution to our economic problems, or fracking is the worst attack on the environment.  The truth is somewhere in between, & always more nuanced.

I know a lot of people would still oppose an increase in extraction of natural gas because of the problem of climate change.  I would argue that the increase in the use of natural gas as a fuel source for electricity is a much better option for the environment than coal.  Coal produces a lot more CO2 per unit energy released, and it also released all sorts of heavy metal toxins like mercury.  Natural gas is, in my opinion, a great transition fuel to move away from coal and toward fuels that are more environmentally friendly.  I would love it for us as a society to move more toward renewable fuels, and I think we will, but that process of societal change is going to take a long time.  Moving away from coal and toward natural gas will be better for the environment.

I'm something of a pragmatist when it comes to these issues, and I also enjoyed a recent post at the DotEarth blog about how a ski resort has entered into an agreement with a coal mine of all things in order to reduce carbon output.  This is another example of a step in the right direction.

Gas & Coal in current U.S. legislation

As U.S. legislators work out the new energy/climate change bill, 2 different fossil fuel industries have much to gain or lose.  Today's NY Times has an article on natural gas appearing to get the losing end of the stick compared to the coal industry.  The debate to some extent centers on which of these resources will be better in the long run for reducing carbon emissions and for maintaining a long term, economically stable energy source.


The U.S. certainly has a lot more coal reserves than natural gas, and for this reason could be seen as a more stable long-term fuel.  However, coal is without a doubt a bigger source of pollution than natural gas, whether it be carbon dioxide, compounds that cause acid rain, or toxic metals such as mercury, lead, or cadmium.  The article does not point out this fact well enough in my opinion.  It is estimated, for example, that nearly 40% of U.S. mercury emissions come from coal-fired power plants (ref).  Further, the article does not point out well enough the additional environmental harm that coal mining causes over natural gas, such as mountain top removal and strip mining.


One other disturbing point made by the article includes: 
      "Utilities that burn natural gas would earn $30 billion over 10 years in pollution credits that could be sold on the carbon-trading market. But utilities that burn coal will receive tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution credits, savings that will be passed on to consumers but may serve to delay the closing of some coal plants."  
It would appear that Congress is not attempting to provide a fair & level playing field for the two commodities.  While natural gas can "earn" pollution credits, coal simply gets them for free.  


The article further points out that if Congress were to not pass this bill, natural gas as a power source in the U.S. will likely grow by 30%, which coal growing at only 7%.  With the new legislation being considered, however, the EPA projects that electricity generation from gas would increase by less than 1%.