Can fracking help reduce CO2?is fracking inherently more contaminating than extracting or transporting crude oil, coal and non-fracking natural gas?Does turning off a light truly help the environment?Will global warming reduce available oxygen?Has fracking caused tap water to become flammable?Is Russia funding environmentalist groups to protest fracking?Has fracking caused hundreds of earthquakes in Oklahoma?Do cows produce more CO2 than cars?Are 19.6 pounds of CO2 produced from burning a gallon of gasoline?Can Genesys' solar amplifier generate 40kW of power from a 200W solar panel?Claim that CO2 is less relevant because it is logarithmic
Can solid acids and bases have pH values? If not, how are they classified as acids or bases?
Will this character get back his Infinity Stone?
Why the difference in metal between 銀行 and お金?
Will a top journal at least read my introduction?
Why does nature favour the Laplacian?
What does KSP mean?
Do I have an "anti-research" personality?
With a Canadian student visa, can I spend a night at Vancouver before continuing to Toronto?
Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?
How to back up a running remote server?
What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?
What is the point of Germany's 299 "party seats" in the Bundestag?
Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?
Help to reproduce a tcolorbox with a decoration
What's the polite way to say "I need to urinate"?
How to interact with ERC20 interface?
Killing undead fish underwater
Why do 401k up to company match, then fill Roth IRA, then finish filling 401k?
Confused by chemical notation
Phrase for the opposite of "foolproof"
A Note on N!
Is it possible to measure lightning discharges as Nikola Tesla?
Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?
Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?
Can fracking help reduce CO2?
is fracking inherently more contaminating than extracting or transporting crude oil, coal and non-fracking natural gas?Does turning off a light truly help the environment?Will global warming reduce available oxygen?Has fracking caused tap water to become flammable?Is Russia funding environmentalist groups to protest fracking?Has fracking caused hundreds of earthquakes in Oklahoma?Do cows produce more CO2 than cars?Are 19.6 pounds of CO2 produced from burning a gallon of gasoline?Can Genesys' solar amplifier generate 40kW of power from a 200W solar panel?Claim that CO2 is less relevant because it is logarithmic
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?
climate-change power-generation fracking
migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago
This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.
add a comment |
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?
climate-change power-generation fracking
migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago
This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.
add a comment |
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?
climate-change power-generation fracking
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?
climate-change power-generation fracking
climate-change power-generation fracking
edited 1 hour ago
Oddthinking♦
102k31428532
102k31428532
asked 7 hours ago
krubo
migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago
This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.
migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago
This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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:
- Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal
- Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
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.
1
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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:
- Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal
- Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
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.
1
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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:
- Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal
- Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
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.
1
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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:
- Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal
- Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
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.
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:
- Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal
- Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas
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.
answered 6 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
8,87653750
8,87653750
1
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
1
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
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. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |