Fracking Has Cut More CO2 Emissions Than All Renewable Energy Combined
Pump jacks and wells are seen in an oil field on the Monterey Shale formation where gas and oil extraction using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is on the verge of a boom on March 23, 2014 near McKittrick, Calif.(Photo by David McNew/Getty Images) Pump jacks and wells are seen in an oil field on the Monterey Shale formation where gas and oil extraction using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is on the verge of a boom on March 23, 2014 near McKittrick, Calif.(Photo by David McNew/Getty Images) ∧
Fracking Has Cut More CO2 Emissions Than All Renewable Energy Combined
MICHAEL BASTASCH
Hydraulic fracturing has done more to cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade than all renewable energy sources and nuclear power combined, according to data from the Energy Department’s statistical arm.
The shift from coal to natural gas alone cut CO2 emissions more than 2 billion metric tons in the last decade, which is about 72 percent more than emissions reduced through increased “non-fossil generation.”
“Between 2005 and 2016, CO2 emissions declined by a cumulative 3,176 [million metric tons] as a result of these two factors,” the Energy Information Administration notes in a new report on U.S. emissions.
Utilities have been investing more in power plants, and converting many coal-fired plants, to burn natural gas in recent years, spurred by the massive increase in shale gas production.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling has allowed drillers to unlock once out of reach shale gas reserves. The fracking boom collapses the price of natural gas since 2008, giving utilities a low-cost alternative fuel as environmental regulations forced coal plants to install expensive equipment or retire.
“It is now clearer than ever that if we are interested in addressing climate change, natural gas must play a significant role,” Steve Everley, spokesman for the industry-backed Texans for Natural Gas, said in a statement.
Environmentalists have given natural gas a mixed reception. Many groups see the shift from coal to lower-emitting natural gas as a positive step, but at the same time oppose fracking into shale.
Activists argue fracking can contaminate groundwater — of which there’s little evidence — and releases methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Environmentalists backed Obama administration regulations on fracking on federal lands and rules to limit methane emissions.
The Trump administration is working to repeal Obama-era rules restricting oil and gas drilling, but environmentalists are using the courts and working through state governments to put areas off-limits to fracking.
The Interior Department entered into a legal settlement in May with the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD). The Bureau of Labor Management had effectively banned fracking on 1 million acres of federal land in California. That area of California will continue to be off-limits to drilling.
Nearly 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide has been reduced through the “growth in non-carbon electricity generation, especially wind and solar,” but that figure also included hydropower and nuclear energy, estimated the Energy Information Admistration (EIA).
“Although total electricity generation use grew by about 1% from 2005 to 2016, related CO2 emissions fell by 24% over that period,” EIA found, attributing most of this decline to natural gas.
“The EIA’s report may be an inconvenient truth for the ‘Keep It In the Ground’ campaign, but it’s further confirmation that affordable energy is linked to a cleaner environment,” Everley said. http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/06/fracking-has-cut-more-co2-emissions-than-all-renewable-energy-combined/
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
This is a Joke right?
It's true.
Liberals hate real science, and this response is a good example of that
To whom is this comment directed?
In other rightwing "nooze:" Smoking is great for you!!!
... and increased ground water contamination exponentially. While reducing carbon dioxide is a noble goal, so is keeping our water safe to drink. There has to be a balance!
How does it affect ground water.
The aquifers are way above the shale formations.
In in most cases, thousands of feet above.
E.A What the Public are told is " Half Truths ":
Tell me when they drive down the Pipe to get the Crude, how many surfaces does that pipe have?
I've just told you how aquifers, thousands of feet above the fracking formations are contaminated, via fractures, old, poorly abandoned wells, and the failure of natural "traps". Didn't you believe me?
E.A Sometimes one has to be patient and take " the other path "
When a Bore HOLE is driven, it cuts Through Horizontal Layers, it is these " Layers " that have " Vaults OR Faults/Fractures " that over time fill with what we seek, The Drilling allows for a Vertical Fissure, so those that are at Higher Depths and hence more pressure to LEAK out to the ones Above.
The Lies often told is that the Well Casings are " Sealed " and those flows can not take place, which over time has been proven to be FALSE, While it may be that The ID ( Internal Diameter ) Might be " Secure " the OD ( Outside Diameter ) Has Created a " Weak Point " that anything with sufficient pressure will find its way between the Different LAYERS that it goes through!
In Combination with 4.2.1 Eagle Averro
Also, here is a diagram about how fracking can contaminate the upper formations.
This shows how the contamination can travel from the deeper formations to the upper formations, via fractures, (the dotted lines), and old abandoned wells.
BTW, well casings are subject to corrosion, and other problems , like all wells. Nothing like counting on a water well your whole life and then, boom, the casing is breached and you have no water...
The wells aren't 5000' deep anyway, they're 5000' long. They're only about 1500'deep to reach the correct pay zone. Here, right where I stand, basement rock is at about 4000'-- and that's granite. Not much oil in granite.
This also shows the water on the surface and the near-surface groundwater. It is not to scale. Also, you can see faults below, that are not seen at the surface. Those can be found with the proper drilling and research, (sonar waves), but are not considered to be an important part of the research and development needed for siting fracking wells. Yes, they are getting better, but only to save money-- not to protect the drinking water supplies.
LOL! That was a lot to illustrate!
Thank YOU Dowser, that is absolutely, Fantastically Brilliantly, err... what was that about :-))
Yes, that do just Fine, many thanks!!!
The impact that fracking has had on the environment has been earth shaking. Literally.
How so?
Oh, I dunno - ask Oklahoma.
We know that Oklahoma experienced 623 magnitude 3+ earthquakes in 2016, 903 in 2015, 579 in 2014 and 109 in 2013. This rise in seismic events has the attention of independent scientists, citizens, policymakers, media and industry. See what information and research state officials and regulators are relying on as the situation progresses.
Proven? No scientific evidence to support this allegation.
Lol.
GEologists believe that there is a correlation. Since we study earth movements and materials, do you think we make this stuff up?
E.A What at times might be hard for the Common Folk to appreciate about Science, and what Multi Nationals Take Advantage off, is that Science need to " Prove it " and that Takes time and some cases 20 - 50 Years or More, so Big Companies can take advantage of that time frame, see Thalidomide, and what that has done, but this is a LOT worse as I stated earlier!