Shale gas may be worse than coal

12 April 2011 last updated at 17: 10 GMT by Richard Black environment correspondent, BBC News gas is a natural by-product of the slate rock the new kid on the block of energy, shale gas, possibly worse includes change terms than coal, a study in climate.

Drawn from rock by a controversial "Fracking" process, hail some the gas as a "Springboard" for a low carbon future and a route to energy security.

But US researchers found that shale gas drilling significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas leak.

This makes its climate change worse than conventional gas, they say - and probably worse than coal as well.

"When compared to coal, the area of shale gas is at least 20% larger and perhaps more than twice the size of the 20-year horizon, and is comparable for 100 years," rewrite in a paper just published in the journal climate change.

"We have produced gas footprint of shale gas, the first comprehensive analysis of greenhouse", said author Robert Howarth at Cornell University in Ithaca, United States direction.

We have used the best available data [and] the conclusion is that shale gas could be all in fact harmful to global warming, most likely as bad or worse than coal, he told BBC News.

Short-term fix? Continue reading the most important story

go we should show not on shale gas as a 'transitional fuel' in the next few decades be used, to other fossil fuels replace "

end quote Robert Howarth Cornell University greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas are mainly to two things": produced, if the gas is combusted carbon dioxide and methane, the leaks out is exploited during the fountain.

Figures from the US Government and industry show that at least one-third as from conventional wells and perhaps more than twice more methane from slate gas production so much leaks.

Extracting gas includes a complex sequence of processes including drilling to below and then laterally along the rock crack a slate bed with hydraulic pressure or explosions (Fracking), plug in the wave place and then "drilling" these connectors.

Coal, is connected with a much smaller version of methane as opposed to during mining. but burning it about twice as much CO2 as burn natural gas produced.

Molecule for molecule, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; but it takes on a much shorter period of time in the atmosphere.

Figures from this research team according to over a period of 20 years, the warming is worse than coal - and, perhaps more surprisingly, effects of the use of shale gas net that conventional gas be worse than coal as well.

Is almost certainly better than carbon - over a period of 100 years of conventional gas, but shale gas could be worse.

The exact numbers depend on the leakage rates. Dr Howarth group used ?best practice? estimates; in the real world could be so the leakage and the climate change impact even worse.

"Nobody knows best practices; sure to what extent industry uses" "and unfortunately, at least in the United States industry wants not Government or the public to know," he said.

Some communities see shale gas as a route to the local riches, as well as energy independence

"Has proposed regulations that would require the industry to report emissions of methane, environmental protection agency, but several companies have sued the EPA to try to prevent such coverage."

With greenhouse gas emissions you use resume of their rise as companies out of recession, and growth in fossil fuel absolute faster increased renewable energy have updated some analysts and even climate activists on the option expand seized gas appliance as a "transitional fuel" on the way from high-carbon coal-burning on low-carbon alternatives.

The new U.S. analysis suggests this may be no reasonable strategy given the fact that the entire carbon footprint displayed larger, is - especially when comes the gas from slate formations.

Current forecasts suggest that within 25 years, half of the U.S. natural gas output from slate, while many other countries are also the technology.

The first study of Fracking in the UK found last month in Lancashire.

Euan Nisbet, a geologist, programs of Royal Holloway, University of London leading several methane monitoring and research suggested that the detailed balance between geological formations can vary.

He said "by trying the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas production, evaluate Howarth and his team ask important questions about this new bonanza".

"I suspect the debate about will be long, and the answers will be different for each shale gas;" "but it is important that we combat this debate."

"We must be very careful, to take fully into account the greenhouse footprint of conventional gas over long distances, for example in the import of Asian gas to Europe or Norwegian gas in the United Kingdom be conducted." "The energy choices are not simple."

The UK Department for energy and climate change (DECC) prepared on more Fracking licenses across the country grant himself, and a spokesman said it would "closely to monitor developments and consider the need for further research to improve our understanding of the impact on the policy".

Robert Howarth, was however less ambiguous.

"We should not continue shale gas as a 'transitional fuel' view, be used in the next few decades, replace to other fossil fuels, but rather work harder really green renewable fuels in the direction as quickly as possible, to persuade such as wind and solar energy."

View the original article here