Fracking's Environmental Impacts Scrutinized

[longknife]

Date: September 21, 2014

Source: Manchester University


Summary:

Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually fared better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.


I'm certainly not an expert and can only rely on articles like this. I have no idea who conducted the research. So, all I ask is read the piece and decide for yourselves.


Read @ Fracking s environmental impacts scrutinized -- ScienceDaily

 

[LiberalMedia]

Date: September 21, 2014

Source: Manchester University


Summary:

Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually fared better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.


I'm certainly not an expert and can only rely on articles like this. I have no idea who conducted the research. So, all I ask is read the piece and decide for yourselves.


Read @ Fracking s environmental impacts scrutinized -- ScienceDaily

A very interesting thread! I do have a bit of a problem with one of their findings, however.

But the study also found that shale gas was better than offshore wind and solar for four out of 11 impacts: depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans, as well as the impact on freshwater and marine organisms. Additionally, shale gas was better than solar (but not wind) for ozone layer depletion and eutrophication (the effect of nutrients such as phosphates, on natural ecosystems).

On the other hand, shale gas was worse than coal for three impacts: ozone layer depletion, summer smog and terrestrial eco-toxicity.

Let's read that again. Shale gas--a finite resource--depletes our natural resources less than unlimited wind and solar power? How is that even remotely possible?

 

[Samson]

Date: September 21, 2014

Source: Manchester University


Summary:

Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually fared better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.


I'm certainly not an expert and can only rely on articles like this. I have no idea who conducted the research. So, all I ask is read the piece and decide for yourselves.


Read @ Fracking s environmental impacts scrutinized -- ScienceDaily

A very interesting thread! I do have a bit of a problem with one of their findings, however.

But the study also found that shale gas was better than offshore wind and solar for four out of 11 impacts: depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans, as well as the impact on freshwater and marine organisms. Additionally, shale gas was better than solar (but not wind) for ozone layer depletion and eutrophication (the effect of nutrients such as phosphates, on natural ecosystems).

On the other hand, shale gas was worse than coal for three impacts: ozone layer depletion, summer smog and terrestrial eco-toxicity.

Let's read that again. Shale gas--a finite resource--depletes our natural resources less than unlimited wind and solar power? How is that even remotely possible?

I can only guess that converting wind and solar energy to electricity requires the use of materials and energy that exceed the energy they produce.

 

[Pennywise]

Date: September 21, 2014

Source: Manchester University


Summary:

Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually fared better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.


I'm certainly not an expert and can only rely on articles like this. I have no idea who conducted the research. So, all I ask is read the piece and decide for yourselves.


Read @ Fracking s environmental impacts scrutinized -- ScienceDaily

A very interesting thread! I do have a bit of a problem with one of their findings, however.

But the study also found that shale gas was better than offshore wind and solar for four out of 11 impacts: depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans, as well as the impact on freshwater and marine organisms. Additionally, shale gas was better than solar (but not wind) for ozone layer depletion and eutrophication (the effect of nutrients such as phosphates, on natural ecosystems).

On the other hand, shale gas was worse than coal for three impacts: ozone layer depletion, summer smog and terrestrial eco-toxicity.

Let's read that again. Shale gas--a finite resource--depletes our natural resources less than unlimited wind and solar power? How is that even remotely possible?

Neither gas nor oil are finite. There is a shelf at the bottom of the ocean that feeds degraded life forms along with water deep into the earth. If oil can leach from the ocean, it means the oil is beneath the ocean floor, far lower than any dinosaur would have once walked to graze and die.

 

[DGS49]

I agree with Pennywise. For all practical purposes the total natural gas resources are unlimited. Just today there is enough in proven resources to last the lifetimes of anyone possibly reading this forum.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with Pennywise. For all practical purposes the total natural gas resources are unlimited. Just today there is enough in proven resources to last the lifetimes of anyone possibly reading this forum.

To be fair to the (rational) peak oil/gas faction, it was never about running out of all oil/gas, it was running out of the economically recoverable oil or gas.

The reason the "peak" curve keeps going up is that new technologies keep coming out that reduce the cost of extracting the harder to get reserves. It was the one thing most peak oil calculations left out.

 

[DGS49]

Marty, I don't think the alarmists are as astute as you seem to think they are. I have heard people talking about "running out of oil" for decades. The simple fact that more oil will be available as the price goes higher is completely lost on most people.