I see Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation has produced an interesting report on Shale gas. It seems shale gas could provide us with relatively clean energy ( clean compared to oil and gas anyhow) for centuries ahead, and go some way to helping us overcome the worries some have about peak oil, and to decarbonise the world quickly. Also, the quantity of gas available to be exploited is this way should bring down the price of gas and make fuel more affordable.
The report is here http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Shale-Gas_4_May_11.pdf and
cba reading it
can you give a figure for extraction efficiency , as in how much of the fuel is consumed to provide energy to extract the rest and how that affects the CO2 emission ?
I'm afraid I am not an authority so have no idea about extraction efficiency. I imagine if it were very inefficient that would deter companies who are extracting gas in this way.
The GWPF seems to saving that shale gas offers a cheaper alternative too oil, nuclear and renewable's. I doubt that when you consider the environmental and human cost of extraction and the GHG emissions caused by burning shale gas into the future... They also criticise environmental groups and other fossil fuel energy producers. I'd like to know who funded their study?
I would recommend this documentary out http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/gasland/ , there may be some fibs but the pictures speak for themselves
Some commentators are saving there may be as much as 250 years worth of this shale gas, and I can see why its considered a great solution, anythings better than Gasprom having a monopoly..
this gives some background to normal natural gas http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3673 while this http://peakoil.com/production/shale-gas-the-problem-with-eroei/ gives you an idea of the hidden issues
To address the OPs question, there is no fossil fuel 'relatively clean' energy source, IMHO or best options are to start producing massive amounts of wind, solar and wave systems and solve the storage problem, probably easiest with the proposed inter-connectors and some pumped storage reservoirs. Even then Nuclear seems like it will be in the mix, probably bought from the UK as is the case at the moment.
"a modest IEA scenario, by 2035, three-quarters of the world’s oil production from existing fields will need to be replaced" Mr Tanaka (IEA)
May I also recommend these two books, in lieu of Ireland having any decent literature on the subject
I hope they don't find any! I would like to see more info on how they proposed to extract the stuff
good article by feasta, thanks for that Capt'n
I wonder why you hope Ireland doesn't find any shale gas?
please look at the documentary above, shale gas exploration can be very damaging to the landscape and environment, not to mention GHG emissions. I would rather see us concentrate on developing world class wind and wave technologies.
I have looked at the documentary, and I am able to see it's been made to suit a certain agenda. I think it foolhardy to refuse to examine if we have a natural resource which might save us billions in importing gas, on the strenght of a documentary made by someone with a specific aganda. Or even by someone without a specific agenda.
We already have quite advance wind technologies and, as we speak, the existing technologies are being improved and worked on. Why you think that should prevent us exploring other natural resources seems unclear. If the result of that exploring is that we decide its going to be too damaging to the environment or landscape, or anything else, simple exploring it now doesn't force us to proceed to exploit it, if thats what we decide. Lets base that on proper evidenc, and not on a youtube documentary, or even a non youtube documentary!
Fine, lets wait and see what 'we decide' and the proper evidence, my concerns lie with shale gas extraction. In my above post I recognised the agenda in the documentary, and I then went on to highlight the issues of shale gases EROEI and its production of GHG's, not to mention enviro cost of extraction.
I'll repeat (with the in IMHO preamble) I'm more keen to see budgets spent on renewable technologies than exploration for fossil fuels. I would like to see an attempt to slow down Climate change as much as I'm concious of peak oil and see wind and wave the best resource we have to do that.
It does come across in your posts that you are not keen on flossil fuels. Personally, I try to keep an open mind and don't really mind where the cuelo comes from just so long as the power keeps on coming. Currently, wind or wave power is not dependable, but gas turbines are dependable so long as there is a supply of gas. That one fact alone rules out us being able to depend on wind or wave power, alas.
Is this that fracking thing again????????
Isn't it dreadful when bad things happen to good sentences! My point was simply that we only get wind power when the wind is blowing, and waves when there are waves, and tidal power when the tide is going in or out at the right place. With oil, gas or nuclear, we can get power whenever we need it, with wind, wavew or tide, we can get power only when conditions are right.