Shale Gas, Prosperity, & the Green Agenda

I like the environment. I really like it. I have been an avid camper and backpacker for decades. I have visited a lot of places that one can only visit after walking for days with forty pounds of food, clothing, housing, and alcohol on my back. I won't describe the proportions. I enjoy breathing relatively fresh air and drinking relatively clean water.

I also enjoy living a life that is prosperous and interesting beyond the imagination of my more remote ancestors. I like having a warm, well-lit house with a blue ray hooked up to a wide screen and a laptop and internet connection with which to irritate my cherished readers and Professor David Newquist.

If I have to give up some of the latter to enjoy the former, I am prepared to negotiate. I am not as quick to give away the chance for a similar prosperity to aspiring people around the world as some of my environmentalist friends.

I suspect, however, that for a lot of environmentalists, prosperity is not something that needs to be traded for environmental benefits; rather, it is something that is bad in itself. In the late 80's a couple of physicists claimed to have achieved cold fusion.

It never panned out, but if it had it might have delivered a clean and abundant source of energy: prosperity for all without pollution or global warming. I recall reading a series of responses from environmentalists who were appalled at the prospect. It would mean that we don't have to give up all the good stuff. These folks, I judged, were enemies of human happiness.

We may be about to witness another test of green intentions. From Ron Bailey at Reason:

The world's projected natural gas supplies jumped 40 percent last year. How is such a thing possible? Until a decade ago, experts believed that it would be technically infeasible to exploit the potential resource base of natural gas locked in 48 shale basins in 32 countries around the world. Then horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, was perfected. The shale gas rush was on, and last year the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) issued an analysis revising its estimates of available natural gas dramatically upward.

Ron gives us an idea of what this means.

A rough calculation suggests that 100 percent of coal-powered electricity generation could be replaced by burning an additional 14 [trillion cubic feet] of natural gas, boosting overall consumption to 37 tcf per year. The EIA estimates total U.S. natural gas reserves at 2,543 tcf. This suggests that the U.S. has enough natural gas to last about 70 years if it entirely replaced the current level of coal-powered electricity generation.

Similarly, it would be notionally possible to replace the entire current U.S. gasoline consumption with about 17 tcf of natural gas per year. So replacing coal and gasoline immediately would require burning 54 tcf annually, implying a nearly 50 year supply of natural gas.

Since we probably won't stop burning coal and gasoline anytime soon, we may have just secured enough energy to supply the world's needs for the next century. We might be able do this while dramatically reducing coal and oil consumption and emissions.

Better yet, producing natural gas by fracking is much more environmentally friendly than oil wells or open cast coal mines. Burning natural gas, likewise, has a much smaller carbon footprint than coal or gasoline.

You might think that the environmentalists would be happy. They were in favor of fracking only a little while ago, Ron explains. Now that it actually promises to meet the world's needs, they are alarmed. The greens have gone red in the face over shale.

On their own there is a lot that the environmentalists can do to retard the exploitation of shale. They are masters at using the courts to such effect. Worse still, there is a potential alliance here between the greens and their traditional enemies in the coal and oil industries. Big Coal and Big Oil aren't necessarily happy to see Big Shale come on the scene.

If Big Green cares only about the environment and doesn't give a frack about common prosperity, it should still favor fracking. It is better for the environment than the traditional alternatives. If Big Green opposes the expansion of shale gas production, that will prove my point. They're really closet Calvinists, or worse, hair shirt Catholics. What really bothers then is the idea that someone, somewhere, might be comfortable and happy.

Comments

[jim meidinger]

Seems there are some environmenalists that "ain't happy unless nobody's happy", including themselves.

[Donald Pay]

Natural gas is a bridge fuel only, not a solution. Fracking has real problems. Groundwater and surface water contamination has destroyed water sources providing drinking water to communities. Communities that once supported natural gas development through fracking have turned against it, once their water source is destroyed. Sierra Club has opposed a nationwide ban on fracking, but is reconsidering due to problems that keep developing wherever fracking has occurred. You might want to read up a bit.

[larry kurtz]

Aberdeen is a long way from where damage from hydraulic fracturing affects local groundwater supplies. Being insulated from the facts must be so consoling to the redstaters who just don't care what happens after the profits have been made.

It's hardly surprising that the FSA is anti-environment. Its revolving door mission is subsidizing industrial agriculture sucking fossil water out of aquifers and polluting wetlands in its effort to satisfy the lobbyists so the Kochs and the Meidingers of the United Snakes can have legal but unethical sex with Congress.

[larry kurtz]

btw, Jim: interested party stats have revealed that your ip address has visited.

[larry kurtz]

Since Gingrich’s extra-marital love life is being acknowledged as “healthy,” revealing that Kristi Noem had an affair with Jim Meidinger should be no biggie, right?

[Jimi]

I just get a kick out those on the left. They consistantly advocate the loss of their own freedom and prosperity, and then they bitch about it, and try to pretend it is everybody elses fault!

[Jimi]

Larry,

"extra-marital love life is being acknowledged as 'healthy'"

Well that all depends on what your definition of "is" is? Maybe you should ask St. Bill which definition he used.

[Miranda]

I am delighted that there is such a thing as the "Swedish Skeptics Society."

[larry kurtz]

South central South Dakota sits over a geothermal sea:

http://smu.edu/geothermal/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XlWSurevy4&feature=player_embedded

[Ken Blanchard]

Miranda: I have long been skeptical about Swedes, so I am with you. I deleted that post as spam, because it was spam.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: you might want to read down a bit. Ron Bailey explains the groundwater issue in detail. Shale gas still looks better than any other viable source of energy. Without a viable source of energy, I would have to do without you.

[duggersd]

Ken, I am beginning to think you pick topics just because you know Donald will go ballistic. Thanks for the entertainment.

[Ken Blanchard]

dugger: you're welcome.

[ralph]

This is serious and REAL and the US government has been working on it for 10 years.
Please take 15 min and explore the link provided

Andrea Rossi has given three demonstrations so far including with professors from Bologna University and the Swedish skeptics society and the Chairman of the Swedish Physics Union. This is an directory of Rossi efforts http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator. This is a link to the LENR site where detailed information about cold fusion efforts is available. www.lenr-canr.org/News... The US Naval Research lab has been working on this with positive results for over 10 years and has confirmed it existence. Yet the major scientific magazines refuse to touch this issue since it was purportedly discredited by some researchers and an institution that stood to lose 10s of millions in funding per year in hot fusion. Government funded hot fusion systems have never produced surplus energy after years of research billions invested.

Rossi has announced a 1MW Cold Fusion facility to be opened in Greece this Oct. Still top line periodicals have yet to publish even one article. This will change the economics of the world lifting many people out of poverty and it will also threaten many vested interests.

http://pesn.com/2011/05/17/9501827_Ampenergo_Amps_Up_Rossis_Energy_Catalyzer_in_America/
"..Ampenergo was founded by Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. It is important to note that Robert Gentile was the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during the early 1990's. This helps confirm Rossi's claim that tests of the E-Cat have been observed by the U.S. Department of Defense and the DOE. It is very likely that at least certain individuals in the DOD and DOE are aware and interested in the Energy Catalyzer. However, their silence is deafening.

It is unknown if any military or secret government research is taking place, but there are unsubstantiated rumors floating around the internet of the US Navy using a nickel-hydrogen cold fusion reactor to power a submarine. Although the rumor is not likely to be true, if they have known about the technology for a couple of years, it is possible testing is taking place. Trillions of dollars go missing from the DOD budget on a regular basis, and the money is obviously being spent on something..."