47

The Guardian reports that the UK fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, has resigned and blamed anti-fracking activism for "fear-mongering", saying:

“There is much to be optimistic about how developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy. Sadly today only those who shout get heard.”

To me this seems completely illogical. I would think that fracking can only increase the supply of fossil fuel, that any increase in supply causes some increase in consumption, and that any increase in consumption of fossil fuel causes an increase in CO2.

Is there any validity to her claim?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
krubo
  • 724
  • 5
  • 9
  • 3
    @Oddthinking: *Deleting Peter's answer* is a political rant. His answer is sourced, and relevant. Let users vote on it for its merits, instead of swinging the mod banhammer. – DevSolar Apr 30 '19 at 08:27
  • 3
    @Sklivvz: Please specify which part of Randy's answer *requires sourcing*. That burning *any* fossil fuel will release CO2 to the atmosphere? The two remaining answers are *ridiculously* misleading, and you mods banhammer the dissenting opinions. You make me **sick**. – DevSolar Apr 30 '19 at 08:30
  • @DevSolar Thanks for the support. I added a defense on top of the (still deleted) post and "apply" for re-opening. Btw, how do I contact OddThinking or ask others about their opinion short of a Meta post? [ah, saw that in the FAQ: I can flag it.] – Peter - Reinstate Monica Apr 30 '19 at 09:21
  • @PeterA.Schneider I went ahead and opened [a Meta post](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4359/why-was-an-answer-about-fracking-deleted) about this. – krubo Apr 30 '19 at 09:24
  • 1
    I'm sure one could come up with a scenario where mining more coal would reduce overall CO2 production, if the coal were somehow used to offset some other really bad practice. – Daniel R Hicks May 02 '19 at 22:15
  • @DanielRHicks For the lulz: indeed! Mine coal, then use it to improve devastated soils around the equator *terra preta* style, for speed-up re-forestation of our burger patty beef pastures as palm oil and soy fields there. There are better ways, and *mining* is less important than simply stopping burning down and trumping or bolsonaring down existing ecosystems, but the options are available… – LangLаngС Jan 02 '20 at 22:26

3 Answers3

86

If it replaces coal mining for power production, fracking reduces CO2 emissions, but that's not the whole story. Burning anything results in increased CO2 emissions, and methane leaks in fracked gas infrastructure result in CO2 equivalent emissions that erase the gains in reduced CO2 emissions compared to coal.

Engel's argument rests on two key assumptions which have turned out true in the case of the U.S., which leads the world in shale gas production:

  1. Natural gas replaces coal as a source of electric power. This is basically true. With an aging coal fleet, increasing natural gas-burning generation capacity, and falling power prices, several economists have looked at the direct effects on coal consumption. Numbers vary, but anywhere from 28% to 49% of the reduction in U.S. coal consumption is a direct result of the influx of cheap natural gas caused by the shale gas boom (see also here and here for more nuanced analyses). This means that a world with shale gas burns less coal than one without it.

  2. Per kWh produced, coal-burning plants emit more CO2 than natural gas-burning plants. This is also true. Per unit of energy, coal produces more than twice as much CO2 as natural gas (source) when burned in a power plant.

But Engel ignores something that recent data is confirming more and more: leaks in natural gas production systems are chronically under-estimated and probably eliminate the GHG-reducing gains made by the shift from coal to natural gas.

This was documented in an article in Science published in 2018. The article, "Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain", can be viewed in manuscript form here. Phys.org has a good summary. Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):

[R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other "abnormal" operating conditions. The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants operating in 2015, they found.

Net generation from coal and natural gas were roughly equal in 2015, with natural gas increasing and coal decreasing since then.

The reason for this massive impact, and why leakage is such a concern, is that methane as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale. And that's just the leaks -- the natural gas still has to be burned, which will produced additional CO2 emissions.

Strictly speaking, if you're intent on digging things up and burning them and all you care about is CO2, then shale gas is better than coal. But it's still putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and if you factor in the global warming potential of leaked methane, it stops looking any better than coal.

LShaver
  • 9,931
  • 6
  • 41
  • 73
  • 15
    I think that last paragraph should be worded much stronger. There's no dithering about what is more "CO2e". There is no "switching" to shale gas, that gas is burned *in addition* to the coal and oil that's burned. *If you care about CO2, stop burning fossilized carbon*, full stop. Anything else is just deceiving yourself. – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 13:25
  • 7
    @DevSolar The gas is burned in addition to coal and oil because it can _reduce the demand_ on coal and oil; both which give off worse CO2 emissions. It's not really fair to call that gas "additional"; because if that power wasn't generated through shale gas or renewable resources, it _would_ be produced by coal or oil. The benefeits of shale gas (if they had lower CO2e) would be that you can reduce your environmental effect, while still being competitive. _If_ shale gas were better for CO2e, it would make a reasonable temporary change while cleaner resources become more economical. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 13:43
  • 1
    @JMac: Two rhetoric question -- do you *really* think, when worrying about environmental impact, that we have time to wait until renewable energy sources "become more economical"? And that there is any chance that they might *become* "more economical" magically on their own with a rather established profit machinery in place to produce fossil fuels? The idea is to *leave those fossilized carbons in the ground*, not using them up and waiting for the rising prices to "do the trick" of us switching to renewables... – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 13:49
  • 4
    @DevSolar That's great and all, and we definitely need to do these things, but you're thinking of this from an ideal scenario where everyone is going to do the best thing for the environment, regardless of how it effects their bottom line. If that were the case, we should have already stopped burning fossil fuels. The point is that people will continue to burn fossil fuels regardless, if they can profit off it. It's not about the objectively _best_ answer for the environment; but just if it's objectively _better_ than economic alternatives. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 13:58
  • 2
    @JMac: It is about a fracking company spinning facts, and two highly upvoted answers actually falling for it. *If you are worried about greenhouse gasses*, then the whole discussion of "is fracked gas better or worse than coal" is completely and utterly beside the point. *Gas is not an alternative*, and neither is ramping up its production, through fracking or traditionally. – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 14:02
  • 12
    Re, "Burning anything results in increased CO2 emissions." If I burn petroleum, I release carbon that has been sequestered for tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years. If I burn hardwood logs, I am releasing carbon that has been sequestered for at most a century or so. If I burn fall leaves... less than one year. When you're talking about climate change, it's the long-term _net_ change that matters. – Solomon Slow Apr 29 '19 at 14:06
  • 1
    @DevSolar I think you're thinking about this _far_ too idealistically. If you are worried about greenhouse gasses, the overall goal should be to eliminate their emission as much as we can. If you're worried about greenhouse gasses, determining which of the two emits more greenhouse gasses is _entirely_ the point. You shouldn't stop considering if other solutions are _better_ just because you know they're not the best. If you could reduce your net emissions by half, even if you were still emitting pollutants, wouldn't you agree that taking that step would still be better than not taking it? – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 14:35
  • @JMac: You seem to have forgotton who make the actual claim the OP was asking about, and what that person's angle on the whole matter is. And no, I don't think I am far too idealistically, *too* idealistically, or even idealistically, full stop. I think my position in the matter is better described by the adjectives "objectively" and "fatalistically"... – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 14:50
  • 1
    @DevSolar The actual claim is that "...developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy". This is what the answer addresses, and if shale gas/fracking _did_ have lower CO2e emissions than oil/coal, then switching to those instead of oil/coal _would_ help accelerate reduction of CO2e emissions; while fossil fuel burning is phased out entirely. This answer addresses those claims in a very neutral way. True skepticism shouldn't be about who is making the claim or their angle as much as it is the validity of the claim. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 15:06
  • 1
    @JMac: And I (severely) disagree that "switching" to gas replacing coal and oil is something even the claimant thinks is realistic, and of marginal effect even in the best possible szenario. I think that an answer not addressing that up front is missing the point, and as I downvoted this answer, explained my point. End of discussion. – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 15:14
  • 1
    @DevSolar Switching coal plants to natural gas seems like a fairly realistic scenario, people are looking into it quite a bit. I'm just pointing out that your objections are either a misunderstanding of what they propose, or just incorrect. This answer goes above and beyond addressing the actual claim presented, by pointing out that although CO2 potentially reduces, greenhouse gas effects altogether may not reduce. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 16:01
  • 1
    @JMac: Actually I am discussing just that exact topic with my municipality energy consultant -- the oil burner in my house will need replacement in a few years. And replacing it with a gas burner might shave of a couple percent of greenhouse effect, or it might not, but it would be a very stupid investment if I could instead invest into geothermal energy, and a couple of solar cells to drive the heat pump. Of course the gas burner would be *cheaper*. And that is exactly what the claimant is aiming for: People being cheap, so her favorite industry branch can keep running a profit (ctd.) – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 16:16
  • @JMac: ...at least until her retirement. That is MUCH easier and more profitable (for her, short term) than impressing the need to *stop burning fossils now* on people... (And please, let it rest there. I think I explained my downvote sufficiently. This is not a discussion forum, and you trying to sway me will just make me dig in harder, because I *did* spend some thinking and research on the whole subject.) – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 16:18
  • 1
    @DevSolar As disgusting as it may seem, that's because these things relate to business and money. Although this option is far from the _best_ environmental option to this problem, it doesn't mean it isn't _better_ than going with the status quo. You might be willing to spend extra money for an environmental solution, but that's not the same thing as all the political supporters and power holders wanting the economical solution. There's always a chance that if you propose anything more, you don't get support for _any_ changes. The option that gets chosen is political as well. (cont.) – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 16:25
  • (cont) this claim is examining if it's potentially _better_ to burn natural gas. But really, my main point was related to your original objection, the proposal is generally not "burned in addition to", but is actually "burned instead of"; and that is why examining the claim has merit. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 16:27
  • 1
    @JMac: You don't get it, do you? Even the original claimant isn't *stupid* enough to actually believe that a ton of fracked gas burned would actually result in a ton less coal being burned, *unless* those holing the political power create appropriate incentives. I.e., stop this being about money, and start this being about laws. – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 17:07
  • 6
    Is it better to shoot someone through the knee as compared to shooting them through the abdomen? Probably it is. – Sebastiaan van den Broek Apr 29 '19 at 17:09
  • @DevSolar The big draw with natural gas is that it _creates it's own incentives_ compared to renewable resources. This is why it may be beneficial to look into as a temporary strategy. To replace a coal fired plant with natural gas is not a major change, and if natural gas can be acquired for a better price per unit energy, than the costs to turn a coal plant into a NG plant can easily be offset in running costs. _This_ is why it is beneficial to look at the NG infrastructure and examine it's overall impact. If it were dramatically better for emissions/costs, conversion is an easy sell. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 17:16
  • 2
    @SebastiaanvandenBroek: Not if you're walking through the mall telling people, "hey, never mind that we shouldn't actually shooting anybody, shooting through the knee is better than shooting through the abdomen, so hey, why don't we all shoot each other through the knee?" – DevSolar Apr 29 '19 at 17:20
  • That doesn't mean that alternate solutions like a carbon tax, or outlawing fossil fuels altogether aren't better for the environment. It just means that this is something that could have possibly reduced CO2 emissions economically, compared to just keeping coal plants running. – JMac Apr 29 '19 at 17:20
  • Should the final quote from the leakage study have some context on the amount of power generated from coal and from gas? It seems like it is comparing the total emissions which should be weighted by how much demand they are satisfying? – mao47 Apr 30 '19 at 13:03
  • It seems to me there is an unfounded assumption in jumping from **1** to **2**. Let's suppose *x* increase of natural gas production causes *y* decrease of coal consumption. It would be naive to assume that *x=y* (1-for-1 replacement) unless there is strong evidence of this. If *x≠y*, then an overall reduction of CO2 would only be achieved if the ratio of efficiency exceeds the ratio of replacement. Does any source have actual numbers to assess this tradeoff? – krubo May 01 '19 at 10:24
  • 1
    @krubo The claim is that it _can_ reduce CO2 emissions. Making the assumption that x = y is essentially the "best case scenario" for that claim. Considering the wording, you basically have to make assumptions like that if you want to make sure someone supporting that claim doesn't come back and say "but you could just replace _all_ the coal with natural gas". If this answer didn't already conclude that it's a moot point due to the greenhouse effect of methane, it would be more important to include that, but I don't see why they need to when they refuted something stronger already. – JMac May 01 '19 at 11:02
  • @DevSolar Because shooting through the knee is, while very inconvenient without universal health care, not lethal. Shooting through the abdomen typically causes internal bleeding, which is often lethal without quick medical attention. – Volker Siegel Dec 23 '19 at 14:36
  • @VolkerSiegel And this piece of wisdom was worth necro'ing a months old thread? – DevSolar Dec 23 '19 at 17:28
  • @DevSolar I never thought of the comments (or questions or answers) as threads, or something depending on time. I understand what you mean, but even in actual forum threads elsewhere, I often do not see why a thread should decay over time in any way. It is more plausible there, because it has a natural linear order, as time does. – Volker Siegel Dec 23 '19 at 17:44
30

First, let's agree on definitions. Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is a process by which fluids are drawn from the ground. In this context, the fluid would either be oil or natural gas.

From the article that you link:

Engel’s resignation letter said: “The UK is currently spending £7bn a year on importing gas – money that is not being used to build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads. Developing our own shale gas industry would mean money going into the Treasury rather than out.”

She added: “We know shale gas can be extracted safely. [...]

So she is discussing shale gas which is simply natural gas trapped in shale.

Also from the article:

Fracking, she said, had the potential to create jobs, economic security and provide a cleaner alternative to coal and biomass.

So she is specifically talking about substituting natural gas for coal. Some sources that support natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions:

Note that natural gas itself is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to be cleaner than coal, they have to be careful not to let it leak.

It also may be worth noting that coal is a base load power, meaning that the plant is started and then run continuously. Turning the plant on and off is a lengthy process and not something that they do in response to variation in demand during the day. Coal power plants have a thermal mass, meaning that they continue producing electricity even after the flame is smothered.

Natural gas is on demand power. The generators can be smaller and turned on to meet demand. As such, natural gas is a more natural method to use with renewables like solar and wind than coal is. This is because those renewables are on supply power. They provide power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. But if you want power on a calm night, they don't help you.

Brythan
  • 10,162
  • 5
  • 46
  • 53
  • 33
    I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Archive:Energy_extraction_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._1.1 – Fizz Apr 28 '19 at 09:52
  • 3
    Coal is not a baseload power source in the UK: it is a seasonal source (winter but not summer) and a daily high demand source (daytime rather than nighttime) - see https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ – Henry Apr 28 '19 at 17:47
  • 1
    The quote claiming equating £7bn being spent on natural gas with "money coming out of the Treasury" is total nonsense, akin to Trump's talk about tariffs meaning that Mexico is paying for the wall. It's not the UK government ("the Treasury") that's spending that £7bn: it's the power companies. Indeed, if there's any sort of import duty on that natural gas (I've no idea), that would be money coming in. – David Richerby Apr 28 '19 at 20:36
  • 11
    Natural gas is a gigantic win over coal as far as carbon output is concerned. That being said, its still *adding* carbon, which to many under the present circumstances is pulling in the wrong direction. – T.E.D. Apr 28 '19 at 21:11
  • 10
    @T.E.D. yes, but when you account for CO2 *equivalent* leaks in fracked gas production, it may be worse. – LShaver Apr 28 '19 at 21:13
  • 10
    @LShaver - I'm rather impatient with the "secondary effects pollution" arguments. *Every* power generation method has those, and I've yet to see someone pull that argument out and attempt to tally them up for both sides of their equation fairly. It would probably be madness to do so. It takes an entire society to make even a pencil – T.E.D. Apr 28 '19 at 21:16
  • 2
    @Henry - coal output can be varied over a period of a few hours, so it's better than true baseload (like nuclear), but gas output can be varied a lot faster. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Apr 29 '19 at 06:58
  • 2
    Engel is quoted as saying that natural gas is cleaner than "coal or biomass". You've addressed the coal side well, but how does it stack up against biomass, given that biomass carbon has come from atmospheric CO2? – Paul Johnson Apr 29 '19 at 08:48
  • 1
    @PaulJohnson She's not necessarily talking about power generation, but instead home heating. In many parts of the UK, wood or peat burning stoves are used for home heating, which creates a large amount of pollution with particulate matter. CO2 is certainly not the only issue when it comes to energy. – user71659 Apr 29 '19 at 17:06
  • @user71659 Most of the UK's population is urban and not using any kind of solid fuel for anything. I find it hard to believe that wood or peat stoves are a signifcant fraction of UK heating in 2019. – David Richerby Apr 30 '19 at 23:24
  • @DavidRicherby Wood burning emissions are known to be significant and [regulation is underway](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46823440). In particular: "Across the UK, about 1.5 million households use wood for fuel but these fires and stoves will now face restrictions because of their leading role in the production of particulate matter." The impact is the number of stoves times the amount of PM they each release. Number of stoves is moderate, the amount of PM each is large, thus creating a significant fraction of PM emissions. – user71659 Apr 30 '19 at 23:48
3

The question is if fracking does...

...accelerate the reduction in CO2.

The answer is NO.

Consumption of fossil fuels is rising. (Also [1].)

So there is no reduction, and no acceleration of reduction that fracking could be part of.

DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
  • 1
    Yes, this is intentionally flipping off certain user's idea of how this question *should* be answered, by turning their concept of argument on the head. – DevSolar May 02 '19 at 09:35
  • 3
    The question is if fracking "_can help_ accelerate the reduction of CO2", and if there is "_any_ validity to the claims". It is not asking if it _currently does_ help accelerate the reduction of CO2, so it's not really clear to me how that link or the information provided here actually addresses what was asked. Other answers seem to clearly demonstrate how it _could_ reduce the production of CO2, under specific scenarios (and then point out why it's not realistic, or even the main factor to consider). This seems to misrepresent the issue. – JMac May 02 '19 at 11:31
  • @JMac: And I *knew* that even the shortest possible answer would be facing BS like this. **There is no reduction of CO2 to be accelerated**. Anything beyond that is speculative. I thought this was a fact-based site? – DevSolar May 02 '19 at 11:38
  • 3
    Again, you're addressing what **is**, while the question is talking about if it **can**. These are entirely different. It **can** be a part of accelerating reduction of CO2 emissions, under some very specific assumptions. This makes no effort to disprove that, and only shows that there is currently no reduction of CO2, not if there is any validity to the claim that it could. – JMac May 02 '19 at 11:54
  • @JMac: And you keep telling me that your judgement of what the claim was about is better than mine (or the OP's), which is the fundamental problem here. If you can't smell lobbyist spin when it's right under your nose, at least don't tell other people their nose sucks. -- I refuse to go into speculation, because it's speculation not fact, and the basic assumption that providing more cheap fossil fuel *could*, in *any* realistic future, "help reduce CO2 emissions" is **evidently** flawed. So I stay with the undeniable fact. More gas became available, but overall CO2 emissions still rise. – DevSolar May 02 '19 at 11:58
  • 2
    ...and investing in fracking (which is *also* what the original claim is about) is a bad way to go about reducing CO2 emissions, when compared to investing the same money in e.g. wind energy. (Just not from the perspective of the fracking industry, of course.) – DevSolar May 02 '19 at 12:20
  • 3
    I don't see how your answer actually provides any evidence of that; it doesn't even discuss the basis of the claim. It literally only provides evidence that we are burning more fossil fuels right now than we previously were, and that CO2 levels are increasing. That provides no insight on the validity of what could happen. I'm not arguing that fracking is something we should be doing. I just don't think dismissing the claims without actually acknowledging what led them to make the claims is a good way to prove that the claim is flawed. – JMac May 02 '19 at 12:23
  • @JMac: And you are trying to wage a war of vocal attrition, which is why I won't even *read* further comments from you. Please stop, or be flagged. – DevSolar May 02 '19 at 12:23