Why gas is not the new energy saviour
If Michael Lind's intention, in his Salon article published Tuesday, "Everything You've Heard About Fossil Fuels May Be Wrong," was to throw so many bombs at once that critics would be too buried by shrapnel to respond, then he at least partially succeeded. It's hard to know where to start grappling with a column that simultaneously dismisses the challenge of global warming, declares a new golden age of fossil fuels that could last millennia, ridicules renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar while advocating a massive nuclear power buildup, and even throws in a few digs at city living and organic agriculture, just for fun. Readers who might more logically expect to see such sentiments espoused in the National Review or the American Spectator than in Salon were unsurprisingly annoyed.
The article is built on two parallel assertions. First, new technologies have unlocked vast quantities of natural gas (and will deliver a lot more oil, as well, to take care of all our energy needs into the distant future, and second, catastrophic climate change is a "low probability" event that we don't need to worry about. Let's start with the second claim, because how we think about climate change drastically affects how we think about fossil fuels.
Lind: "The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes – a fact that explains why the world's governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it."
A better explanation for why the world is treating climate change as a low priority problem might be because the US – historically the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions – has refused to take any action at all. And that, in turn, is a direct result of fierce opposition from the fossil fuel energy industry and other entrenched special interests, as well as the decision of one major political party to utterly reject the conclusions of the scientific mainstream. (A willful display of ignorance unmatched by any other major political party or ruling government in the rest of the world.)
But whatever the true reasons for our failure to act, Lind's timing can't be beat, because on the very day his article appeared, the International Energy Agency revealed that "greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount" in 2010.
From the Guardian: "The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius -- which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" -- is likely to be just "a nice Utopia," according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
"Last year, a record 30.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel -- a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data... 'Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet,' [said Professor Lord David Stern, author of the Stern Report on the economics of climate change], 'leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.'"
I'm not sure what definition of catastrophe Lind is using, but the unprecedented frequency of extreme weather events that we are already witnessing all across our planet is a strong indicator that global warming is already contributing to serious disruptions. If you accept the science of climate change, then the fact that we are pumping record amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is not a good thing.
Which brings us to the main thrust of Lind's piece, his celebration of how hydraulic fracturing technologies – or "fracking" – have allowed energy companies to tap huge amounts of natural gas.
And sure, there are reasons environmentalists should be happy about a dramatic rise in accessible natural gas supplies. Burning natural gas for heating or electricity generation releases much less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels. If forced to choose between natural gas or coal as a source of electricity, any environmentalist would pick natural gas. This is no secret – even as ardent a climate change activist as Climate Progress's Joseph Romm called fracking a potential "game changer" as long as two years ago.
But Lind is far too quick to dismiss the potential environmental problems associated with fracking. While there may not be a meaningful scientific consensus as to whether the fracking process results in significant greenhouse gas emissions, I defy anyone to read the New York Times' massive, exhaustively reported series on pollution problems associated with fracking and still not be concerned with threats to the nation's drinking water supply or the multiple failures of our regulatory system. There are clearly reasons to be concerned. Just this week, Texas – Texas! – passed a "fracking disclosure" law requiring oil or gas well operators who perform hydraulic fracturing "to disclose the volume of water and the chemical ingredients of the fracturing fluids used." Also this week, in New York, state Attorney General David Schneiderman announced he was suing the federal government for "failure to study 'fracking.'"
One can argue that we just don't have enough data to judge the full ecological imprint of fracking, but it seems premature to wave away any potential negative externalities. And yet that kind of blithe dismissal seems to be a theme of Lind's treatment of other hydrocarbon technologies. He notes that "there is enough coal to produce energy for centuries" and touts "tight oil" – the use of fracturing technologies to extract crude oil from old wells, along with oil sands, as encouraging sources of additional hydrocarbons. But generating energy from coal, "tight oil" or oil sands isn't "clean" by any definition. Lumping them in with natural gas makes no sense, since burning oil and coal will continue to exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
Oh well, if climate change really is a problem, argues Lind, then we'll just have to forget about all those hydrocarbons and engage in a massive nuclear power buildup.
"If runaway global warming were a clear and present danger rather than a low probability, then the problems of nuclear waste disposal and occasional local disasters would be minor compared to the benefits to the climate of switching from coal to nuclear power."
It's tempting to say, let's ask the residents of Fukushima what they might think of this thesis, but that's too easy. The more pertinent question to mull is why, if the economics of nuclear power make sense, private industry can't seem to make a go of it. The free market isn't very friendly to nuclear power – it is most widely implemented, today, in countries where there is a strong state presence in the industry, like France or China. Building enough nuclear power plants to make a dent in climate change will be massively expensive. And if we're going to subsidize new sources of energy why not funnel that government funding toward sectors that do not have waste or potential meltdown issues – like wind and solar.
The thrust of Lind's piece is that we have nothing to worry about. But that's the wrong moral to take from the surprising surge of accessible natural gas. If the environmental problems associated with fracking can be managed, then the fact that natural gas is cheap and relatively clean should definitely be celebrated. But not because it signals some illusory new golden age of fossil fuels, but rather because it gives us more breathing room than we thought we had to get our act together and find ways to limit the vast – and increasing –amounts of fossil-fuel derived greenhouse gas emissions that are currently getting pumped into the atmosphere.
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.
This article was originally published on Salon. Reproduced with permission.
Comments on this article
increased energy cost- aust carbon tax
what I find a mystery is the assumption that increased cost will generate new technologies. It appears as just another tax..I have not seen any suggestion that the tax will generate research funds or anything directly productive to reduce global warming...client change sceptics must be encouraged by the lack of real commitnment to do something other than add a new tax
climate change through the ages
To obtain a balanced story of world climate over milennia, google-- Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective---
There are 3 sides to every argument, Your's, Mine and the right one.
climate change through the ages
To obtain a balanced story of world climate over milennia, google-- Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective---
There are 3 sides to every argument, Your's, Mine and the right one.
Mr Fleay's wind
Mr Fleay's grandfather would have had one of those tiny 12V wind generators to put a bit of juice into the batteries in the shed; only when the diesel engine was cranked up every night for the milking did the house have any reliable electric light - 12V at that! As for the Dutch, their windmills produced no electricity - they directly drove waterwheels to drain the polders.
Gas as dalliance and delusion
@"...gas can reduce emissions by 50%"
.
Let's not repeat this salesmen's assertion. It implies that if you convert to gas you will reduce half your emissions, then if you use twice as much gas, you will have no emissions at all.
.
We are perpetuating a shameful deception: At the wellhead, between 10 and 30% of the upcoming gas was CO2, quietly dumped into the environment. Then the long-distance pipelines leak 1 to 2% methane and the municipal pipework leaks God knows how much methane before it has even reached your stove or power plant.
.
And we deceive ourselves: of all the events at Fukushima, the leakage of methane from shattered pipelines will have done far more damage to the greenhouse than the damage done to the Japanese land and sea by spilt oil, coal and radioactivity. However we fail to cry foul when our journalists tramp past 10,000 tragedies and heroic stories to pump up horror at a damaged 1960s vintage power plant whose radiation has killed nobody at all.
.
There is a timebomb in our love affair with gas. The gas industry generously supports many renewables institutes and initiatives, it also supports environmental groups whose members are concerned for the environment including the greenhouse. As we begin to change our image of gas, its support will begin to evaporate.
Market prices
The answer to energy security is high energy prices. Sustained high prices for energy allow new, more expensive to develop energy to be available; eg, unconventional gas, wind, solar, wave, nuclear. Some of these have high startup/decommissioning costs (eg, nuclear), while others have low reliability for most locations (eg, wind). It's as simple as that, hope for high energy prices, not government handouts to technologies which socialise risk.
Fossil Fuel replacement
There is only one technology to replace fossil fuel available and proven now! We must move quickly to nuclear power! It is a clear choice - Carbon dioxide or nuclear.
Wind - Mr Winch you blow way too much wind
Farmers in the outback including my grandfather used wind mills for power generation since the 1950s. The Dutch became a European power house as a result of its advanced wind mills in the 16th and 17th centuries. Now Japan is totally dependent on foreign supplies of coal and uranium, and with the ascent of China and India putting greater demand on limited supplies, if I were Japan I would be looking to harvest, solar, wind and wave energy that is freely available within one’s own country. Point sources of power are very vulnerable to accidents and are targets in modern war fare. Remember Iraq and how the yanks boast about bombing people back to stone age. To rebuild takes 3-5 for coal fired plants and 7-12 years for nuclear plants, where as domestic solar or wind towers can be erected in a week.
With the natural forms of energy it’s much harder to put out the lights for large swaths of the population. I know which path way I'd rather go and I will take the financial pain that goes with it as well and I am no rich banker or paid propagandist either. Now no one would call the Germans fools, their recent move to abandon nuclear energy will create great impetus so make the other forms cheaper and more efficient. Roll on the great German experiment, at least some one is prepared to lead the way. .
Beyond Zero - hehehe
I have read all the Beyond Zero, and it was a good chuckle . Seriously, it wasn't serious.
The consultants bits and bobs made sense here and there, but as a plan it made a good tea cosy.
Sorry sir, but if you are criticising my comments by waving the BeyondZero plan at me and claiming windmills are ready then you never have valued costs, prices or money or even the word cost effective..
Another vehicular example - windmills are like Rolls Royces. They both work just fine but nobody can afford them, both are limited in what they can do, one can't go off roads and the other runs only some of the time. Both are the preserve of the chardonnay set, the comfortable and the socialist idealists. Your average tradie can't afford either.
concept car
Comparing a current model Holden with a concept car is what renewables are to nuclear technology. The "safe" nuclear reactor is always the new model that has yet to be built while wind and solar farms are being built now. Beyond Zero Emissions base their plan solely on existing and ready to deploy renewable technology.
Raise more issues
If Mr Leonard has problems with multiple bombs so do I over his article.
Compare a 1968 holden with the latest version, thats what Fukushima is to current nuclear technology.
The issue of warming and global catastrophe is a non-issue. The same way residents must pay for sewerage and it must be treated before being released is the real principle here, and carbon should have a price for much the same reasons. Its not even necessary to agree on whether the science is in or not, just wash the dishes and put them away clean once the meal is over.
Anyone with half a brain can see that vested interests in renewables have "not-ready economically" technologies that are too expensive and renewable energy salesmen will hussle any easily excited group to push agendas so the renewable investors can get a profit. fair enough self interest.
However, it isn't ready technology that we can afford. So back to the labs boys for another decade until the technology is something we can afford, meanwhile gas can reduce emissions by 50% and we can all afford it.
It really isn't that complicated. The real problem is that windmill huggers have acquired religious fervour for a concept and a lifestyle they want to impose on everyone else.