Home › Fossil Fuels › The Abundance of Natural Gas Is a Double-Edged Sword

The Abundance of Natural Gas Is a Double-Edged Sword

craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Fossil Fuels

The newfound abundance of natural gas carries with it a few main issues, some good, some bad, which I abbreviate as follows:

1) Good news: It holds the potential to lessen the cost and environmental impact of our energy consumption for at least the short term.

2) Bad news: That lowering of costs will make the R&D of renewables less attractive. The consumption of natural gas, a fossil fuel, increases the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, contributing to climate change. To the degree that natural gas reduces our exploration of clean energy sources, it’s actually causing more harm than good overall.

3) Bad news: Fracking, which makes the whole enterprise of natural gas so appealing, is highly controversial. I hope you’ll take a few minutes and check out this video.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6 comments on “The Abundance of Natural Gas Is a Double-Edged Sword”
  1. Frank Eggers says:
    July 9, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I don’t know how to get accurate, objective, and honest information on this issue. In fact, I do not trust either side.

    For well over a century, industry has demonstrated a lack of adequate concern for the public. On the other hand, those who raise alarms about certain types of pollution have often been extremely careless with the truth and have frequently made misleading statements.

    I am convinced that fracking does pose risks, which at least in many circumstances, are probably unacceptable. Whether those risks can be reduced to an acceptable level I don’t know. However, we should try to err on the side of caution.

    • Torbjorn Johnsen says:
      July 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm

      Hello Frank! Seems like you are in any way involved in the extraction of natural gas. There were too many inconsistencies to track your comment.
      Fortunately it is not so far in the future before we can say thanks and goodbye to all use of fossil energy sources.

      • Frank Eggers says:
        July 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm

        Could you quantify “far in the future”?

        I greatly fear that the push for unworkable replacements for fossil fuels will delay phasing out fossil fuels. The problems associated with wind and solar power make them impractical as a primary source of power for large countries. Hydro power can work very well, but is available only in a limited number of locations.

        Probably nuclear power is the only solution, but we need a better nuclear technology than what is most commonly being used. There are dozens of ways to design nuclear reactors and a better technology would eliminate nuclear waste problems and, in addition, be safer and more economical. If we in the U.S. fail to develop a better nuclear technology, the Chinese and others will, which is a good thing, but it would mean that we’d have to pay them for the technology which we could have developed.

        Right now, it appears that the liquid fluoride thorium reactor is the most promising; the Chinese have begun work on it. But it would be a mistake to rule out other possible nuclear technologies prematurely.

  2. Glenn Doty says:
    July 11, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Craig,

    I’ve just published an article on natural gas that you might want to consider responding to:

    http://2greenenergy.com/abundance-of-natural-gas/27014/#comments