At their core utilities really are interconnected. You do not get natural gas to your home without the equipment to process and pump it. The pumps run on electricity that provided by generators powered by coal or that very same gas. This is also the origin of the power sold to the public as a utility. Water and sewerage get pumped by the same electricity.
In other words, coal and fossil-based fuels seem the basis for providing most of the connected utilities in this country. That’s OK for now though, because cleaner power will become the norm through the use of nuclear power plants! Oh, wait, what about that recent Fukushima Daiichi disaster over in Japan? They haven’t completely figured out how to clean that up yet.
As a result of all of these control and safety concerns, Americans are seeking better methods to generate cheap, renewable energy in environmentally conscious ways. Enter the “revolutionary” shale gas movement. The smiling man on the nice commercial says we have a hundred years worth of it right under our feet, and all somebody had to do was think of it. A “clean and cheap fuel,” many are touting shale gas as the transitional fuel to renewable energy; however, critics say the process of drilling for shale gas is dangerous.
Natural gas hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is a process where water, sand and chemicals ( As many as 180 different ones) are injected into rock to dislodge the fuel. In some areas this “harmless” process has resulted in sick animals, sick people, and groundwater so polluted that well water can be lit on fire at the tap.
A Cornell University paper by Robert Howarth, asks the question, “what sort of greenhouse emissions does shale gas produce when you include the methane leaked during production and transport?” Put more simply: Is shale gas anywhere near as clean as we’ve been led to believe? His paper makes an audacious declaration: natural gas produced from shale is dirtier than coal.
We know that natural gas is far from a wonder fuel. However, as BNET’s Kirsten Korosec writes; “the paper’s big conclusion simply can’t be taken seriously, thanks to inadequate data and a serious methodological problem. This is not to say it’s wrong, just that we have no real way of knowing.”
According the paper, up to 7.9 higher emissions from shale gas are released during hydraulic fracturing; at least 30 percent more than those from conventional gas. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when looked at over 100 years.
The carbon footprint of shale gas could be worse than coal? It could be better. We don’t know because the data used on Howarth’s report remains incomplete because there just isn’t a lot out there. The paper focuses only on the emissions during production of the fuel. This appears flawed because modern gas power-generation technology (The end use of the product) is more efficient than coal. Natural gas yields more electricity per unit of energy content.
Is it really and alternative source, or another fossil-based source that requires environment destruction to retrieve it? Please tell me if you find the middle ground on this one.
By K.B. Elliott
K. B. Elliott is a freelance writer for UtilitesJobs.com. Working positions on both the corporate consumer and provider side of utilities in the Detroit area for over 30 years gives him a unique perspective on these 24/7 businesses. To read more of his blogs, please go to UtilitiesJobsblog.com, and be sure to check out the postings for jobs in nearly any industry at Nexxt
Want help finding your next job as a Utilities Professional? Find your niche position at UtilitesJobs.com .
Become a member to take advantage of more features, like commenting and voting.
Register or sign in today!