Timeline for Can fracking help reduce CO2?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2020 at 19:12 | history | edited | LShaver | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link to full text of article, which is now available.
|
| Dec 23, 2019 at 17:44 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | @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. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 17:28 | comment | added | DevSolar | @VolkerSiegel And this piece of wisdom was worth necro'ing a months old thread? | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 14:36 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | @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. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 14:55 | history | edited | LShaver | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added sources quantifying impact of shale gas production on coal consumption.
|
| May 1, 2019 at 11:02 | comment | added | JMac | @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. | |
| May 1, 2019 at 10:24 | comment | added | krubo | 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? | |
| Apr 30, 2019 at 13:28 | history | edited | LShaver | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Quantified coal vs natural gas in 2015.
|
| Apr 30, 2019 at 13:03 | comment | added | mao47 | 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? | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 17:20 | comment | added | JMac | 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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 17:20 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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?" | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 17:16 | comment | added | JMac | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 17:09 | comment | added | Sebastiaan van den Broek | Is it better to shoot someone through the knee as compared to shooting them through the abdomen? Probably it is. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 17:07 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 16:27 | comment | added | JMac | (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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 16:25 | comment | added | JMac | @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.) | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 16:18 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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.) | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 16:16 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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.) | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 16:01 | comment | added | JMac | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 15:14 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 15:06 | comment | added | JMac | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 14:50 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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"... | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 14:35 | comment | added | JMac | @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? | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 14:06 | comment | added | Solomon Slow | 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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 14:02 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 13:58 | comment | added | JMac | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 13:49 | comment | added | DevSolar | @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... | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 13:43 | comment | added | JMac | @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. | |
| Apr 29, 2019 at 13:37 | history | edited | LShaver | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Formatting, strengthening conclusion.
|
| Apr 29, 2019 at 13:25 | comment | added | DevSolar | 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. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 20:53 | history | answered | LShaver | CC BY-SA 4.0 |