Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
However, a shale gas plus CCS energy pathway is unlikely to realise very
low or zero carbon emissions and so will be restricted in the ultimate po-
tential scale of deployment. Upstream emissions may add a not insignificant
penalty of up to 20%, dependent upon the source and transport of the
gas.
14,49
This has particular implications for CCS where the capture process
itself imposes an energy penalty, requiring more fuel and hence realising
greater upstream emission, outside of the capture mechanism. Hammond
et al.
49
estimate the final emissions intensity of electricity from gas CCS to
be approximately 80 g CO
2
ekWh
1
, four-to-seven times more than nuclear
power.
49,50
Depending upon future grid composition, these quantities of
emissions are still likely to be problematic, especially for developed econ-
omies given the scale and level of decarbonisation required.
In effect, shale gas exploitation without prerequisite controls is a gamble
with high stakes. It may be exploited with the intention of its unabated use
and an assumption that the global community will renege on existing
commitments. In which case, we all, including the energy industry, suffer
the impacts of dangerous climate change. Alternatively, if it is assumed that
the global community is serious about avoiding dangerous climate change,
it is being exploited with the expectation that either a global carbon cap will
be in place in due course or with the concomitant support for mass de-
ployment of CCS technology. Without either of these breakthroughs in
policy and technology, investment in shale-gas exploration and associated
gas infrastructure is, in effect, an investment in a stranded asset. Without a
global carbon cap, the unconstrained use of shale gas is inconsistent with
the carbon budgets necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
References
1. IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011 Special Report: Are We Entering A Golden
Age of Gas?, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2011.
2. Health and Safety Executive, Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996
(GSMR), 1996.
3. F. O'Sullivan and S. Paltsev, Environ. Res. Lett., 2012, 7, 044030.
4. S. G. Osborn, A. Vengosh, N. R. Warner and R. B. Jackson, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2011, 108, 8172-8176.
5. POST, Cleaner Coal, Postnote 253, Parliamentary Oce of Science and
Technology, London, UK, 2005.
6. C. L. Weber and C. Clavin, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46, 5688-5695.
7. R. W. Howarth, R. Santoro and A. Ingraffea, Clim. Change, 2011, 106,
679-690.
8. M. Jiang, W. M. Grin, C. Hendrickson, P. Jaramillo, J. VanBriesen and
A. Venkatesh, Environ. Res. Lett., 2011, 6(3), 034014.
9. T. J. Skone, J. Littlefield and J. Marriott, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas In-
ventory of Natural Gas Extraction, Delivery and Electricity Production, US
Dept. of Energy, DOE/NETL-2011/1522, 2011.
