This opinion should create quite a stir amongst enviros. – Anthony
Air pollution is a far more pressing problem – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India – than the challenges posed by greenhouse warming.
A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world, demonstrates Richard Muller (Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley since 1980) in Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking. His co-author, Elizabeth Muller, is his daughter and co-founder (with him) of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit working on environmental issues.
Watch the animation:
As such, air pollution is currently harming far more people than the more distant challenge of global warming – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India. They state:
“The Health Effects Institute estimated that air pollution in 2010 led to 3.2 million deaths that year [across the world], including 1.2 million in China and 620,000 in India. And the pollution is getting worse as global use of coal continues to grow…
The Mullers argues that both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the responsible development and utilisation of shale gas:
“China not only has the greatest yearly death toll from air pollution, but is also key for mitigating global warming. China surpassed the US in CO2 production in 2006; growth was so rapid that by late 2013, China’s CO2 emissions are nearly twice those of the US. If its growth continues at this rate (and China has averaged 10% GDP growth per year for the past 20 years) China will be producing more CO2 per person than the US by 2023. If the US were to disappear tomorrow, Chinese growth alone would bring worldwide emissions back to the same level in four years. To mitigate global warming, it is essential to slow worldwide emissions, not just those in the developed countries. And we feel this must be done without slowing the economic growth of the emerging world…”
“It is believed that China has enormous reserves of shale gas, perhaps 50% larger than those of the US. If that shale gas can be utilised, it offers China a wonderful opportunity to mitigate air pollution while still allowing energy growth… Industry experts believe that the cubic metres of gas recovered from a given well can be doubled in the near future by better design of the fracking stages to match geologic formation characteristics. And they also believe that number could double again in the next decade. Soon that will mean four times the production for only a minor increase in cost. Such an advance is expected to turn currently difficult fields into major producers, to open up fields in China, Europe, and the US that are currently unprofitable.”
The authors consider some of the concerns raised by opponents of fracking; and conclude that they are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.
Developed economies should therefore help emerging economies switch from coal to natural gas; and shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible and shared freely.
And China and Europe are well placed to take advantage of fracking. The high price paid in China and Europe for imported natural gas, typically US$10 per million BTU (compared to the US$3.50 in the US) means that the cost of shale drilling and completion can be much higher and still be profitable.
The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.
Source: http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/why-every-serious-environmentalist-should-favour-fracking/
h/t Steven Mosher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My view exactly,although Muller is apparently ignorant of the large number of nuclear plants China has on the schedule – thirty currently under construction and hundreds more in the planning stages. And nuclear is cheaper than gas in he US, where gas prices have dropped enormously
Yikes. The Berkeley Student Council is gonna go fracking bonkers over this.
I wonder who funded their research. CA’s Monterrey shale formation is supposedly 4 times larger than Bakken. Could it be the Gov Brown is organizing a cheering section in favor of frakking in CA?
@Mike Smith – Every Enviro is going to! He is one of theirs
Far too rational for Guardianistas and their ilk in the UK, but it will happen here eventually. We cannot afford not to.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_SHANGHAI_POLLUTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-06-06-55-20
@philjourdan says: He is one of theirs
Oh yeah. Lucky guess, I guess 😉
‘My view exactly,although Muller is apparently ignorant of the large number of nuclear plants China has on the schedule – thirty currently under construction and hundreds more in the planning stages. And nuclear is cheaper than gas in he US, where gas prices have dropped enormously”
well, no. we visit china often and are fully briefed on their plans. If you want to good place to start, start here
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html
the approach is first things first. Coal is the most damaging. the easiest step to take is to move from coal to natural gas. three main benefits: reduced pollution, reduced costs, and mitigation of GHGs. you dont even have to believe in global warming to see that it makes sense.
If you live in a filter bubble, however, then you must come up with objections.
Col Mosby, I too agree with the sentiment of Mueller’s report except for the evaluation of diesel. I am optimistic enough to believe that with time a form of filter or re- combustion device will be developed to solve the PM2.5 emissions.
Moreover, I believe that you are engaged in wishful thinking that China will replace their 200 year supply of dirty brown coal with cleaner energy sources. The Chinese can be counted on to use every ton of their brown coal. Human life is still cheap in China and will remain so until its communist government is overthrown or evolves into one with real empathy for its citizens.
BTW, nuclear power can never be cheaper than gas for the foreseeable future.
Oh, have you checked the of natural gas in th US lately. The cold spell that just enveloped most of the lower 48 states caused gas prices to spike significantly. Now we hear that gas pipelines can freeze up and shut down thereby complicating both supply and distribution.
A “serious environmentalist” would know that millions of birds and bats are killed each year, and that it is being subsidized by the taxpayer. If the oil or gas industries where causing 10% of that environmental carnage, the “non-serious environmentalists” would be marching on Washington demanding action.
Fracking is a great method to unlock energy, and it will improve the lives of people, and improve the environment for wildlife. That is why the current enviros hate it. The hard left has taken over the environmental movement. Any energy production, that can’t be use to reward cronies, and punish opponents, will be opposed.
I like fracking. I want cheap energy and an ObamaPhone and Obama is going to pay my mortgage & healthcare…
LOL
What utter nonsense… Richard Muller should know better…
If one limits the context around the soundbite one is about to make, one can sound almost sensible.
But taking the bigger picture and the best technology, one can only arrive at one conclusion:—
Thorium,
A LFTR plant.
The chinese, japanese and indians will steal a march on the usa and the west with this technology. (they have shown considerable interest and have put who knows how much into it – how much? we don’t know. You can be sure they will keep it secret anyway and only reveal their lead when they have advantage to do so.)
The usa had it in the 50’s, even a working reactor operational for five years. It was so flexible, the technicians/scientists often shut it down just for the weekend.
It is clear, an example of which is AGW, that the powers that be in the usa and europe have self serving agendas that relate not to the best interests of the people. They will not give in or give up making their money what ever way they can, forcing the rest of us to pay to use them and their agenda. They care not about the environment, the food, the health of the people – or any life except their own.
If your belief in CAGW is scientifically driven, then this position is internally consistent. If your view of CAGW is politically driven, this position will drive you crazy.
Of course there is an assumption about the geology that the Chinese have appropriate source rocks to make shale plays. Historically lack of source rocks has always been the biggest problem in oil & gas exploration in China. So assuming there are appropriate source rocks is putting the horse in front of the cart at this point. At the end of the day, geology still matters. Just look at domestic plays – they are not created equal & even within a given play there are mapable sweet spots, which are driven by geology.
Perfect example is Monterey shale mentioned by paddylol above. On paper, it should be great. In reality, it is a minor player in shale resources. Although the regulatory environment in CA is heinous, there is a geologic component to this as well ( based on my own work in the play ).
“The authors consider some of the concerns raised by opponents of fracking; and conclude that they are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.”
From an insider: The objections are not so much false as they rely on willful misconduct and an attitude of rapine on the part of shale gas producers to be remotely realistic. That such is patently not the case is irrelevant to fractivists (And it IS ‘F-R-A-C’ . If you want the rationale, I invite you to my latest post at http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/) There is some other information there which you might find useful or entertaining on shale gas.
I am in the beginning stages of addressing some of the objections of fractivists in a paper in preparation. As my graduate research in 1980 was on hydraulic fracturing, this will be an extension of that research aimed at responding to fractivist concerns.
But the authors are fundamentally correct.
Muller states in his book on physics for presidents (if only Obama could read it) that the long-term answer is nuclear.
With all of the flack that Richard Muller catches from both sides of the climate debates, I think his two books Physics for Future Presidents and Energy for Future Presidents are among the most overlooked and underrated.
” paddylol says: December 6, 2013 at 11:14 am
I wonder who funded their research. CA’s Monterrey shale formation is supposedly 4 times larger than Bakken. Could it be the Gov Brown is organizing a cheering section in favor of frakking in CA? ”
I like how you think! 🙂
Nice to see some realism in the ranks from M&M (and it’s not our M&M this time). Natural gas will give us that wonderful 30-100 year (depending on who’s numbers you use) buffer. That is lots of time to get LFTR and other technologies figured out Unless we get lazy, complacent and stupid. Again. Oh never mind 🙁
I may be mistaken, but I think Mr. Mosher meant to post this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/06/filter-bubbles-and-the-climate-wars/#comment-1493522
on this thread.
HeyTRM:
“Natural gas will give us that wonderful 30-100 year (depending on who’s numbers you use) buffer”
Let me say that the volume of natural gas available as PUDs (proven but undeveloped reserves) is ASTOUNDING, and the volume which is currently, although not necessarily available comprises many times the PUD volume. If I could show you how our production reserves have INCRAEASED as a result of the performance of the Marcellus Shale during our first year of operations, you would be astounded as well. It is far above the USGS estimates
If we can’t come up with a reasonable alternative by the time shale gas runs out, then we ARE stupid.
In that last post, make that “currently but not necessarily UNavailable”
Muller is right on principle, but weak on facts. The Monterrey shale in Californiamis a good example of why. The Barnett, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, and other shale gas plays are relatively unfaulted basins into which the ‘horizontal’ part of the well can be run for lengths now over a mile. Makes the well work because such a long pay can be fracked. The Monterreynis all folded and faulted, so no long pay is available. Neither Chevron, nor Getty, nor any of the small independents have been able to make the Monterrey work because of this fundamental tectonic/geologic problem.
From what is known about China’s prospective shale gas resources, many of them have the Monterrey problem. China is neither stupid not technically inept. If they aren’t developing their shale deposits,,there are good geophysical reasons.
Dear Mr. Mosher,
Re: “If you live in a filter bubble, however, then you
must come up with{will neither come up with nor seriously examine any} objections.”(Steven Mosher at 11:27am, today)
{edit mine}
Or, do you and I just define the term “filter bubble” differently?
Wishing I understood you better,
Janice
Lest this article about pollution in China be mis-used to erroneously label U. S. (and other non-communist nations’) coal-fired electric power a significant source of air “pollution,” remember:
{Source: http://www.americaspower.org/clean-coal-technologies}
And, yes, Gary Pearse, I think we ought to build A LOT more
nuclear plants. #(:))
For Tom G. Ologist:
Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing!
Best wishes,
Janice
#(:))
” Tom G(ologist) says: December 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Let me say that the volume of natural gas available as PUDs (proven but undeveloped reserves) is ASTOUNDING, ”
I’ve heard that as well and boy I hope it is true and we can recover it. Not to mention the Japanese are making progress on the ocean floor gas hydrates. If that gets into production even human nature couldn’t outlast it.
Cheers