Natural gas from shale currently costs half as much as coal per BTU. Producing electricity with natural gas from shale is more efficient than coal. Natural gas from shale produces less CO2 than coal when it is used to generate electricity. What’s the problem?
More at Forbes.com.
When natural gas is present in a well and no pipeline is available to move it to market or storage that gas has traditionally been flared. This practice causes concerns related to greenhouse gas production and waste.
More at New York Times.
When natural gas is present in a well and no pipeline is available to move it to market or storage that gas has traditionally been flared. This practice causes concerns related to greenhouse gas production and waste.
More at New York Times.
An article in the Los Angeles times points to small amounts of natural gas that are lost during drilling and production and asks: What is the climate impact?
More at Los Angeles Times.
A post on an environmental blog at the Baltimore Sun website has a punchy title: “Marcellus shale gas “dirtier” than coal?”…. Dirty might have been used to provoke shale advocates or to elicit clicks from environmental advocates, however, they ask a question about methane releases canceling out any carbon dioxide benefits gained by using natural gas as a few instead of coal.
In a blog post on the Reuter’s.com website, Christopher Swann, argues that Washington could take easy steps to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, reduce carbon emissions and save citizens money by promoting the use of natural gas in vehicles and electricity generation. He thinks that the natural gas lobby needs to work harder than those promoting coal and railroads.
