by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, University of Califoria at Berkeley
Some oppose shale gas because it is a fossil fuel, a source of carbon dioxide. Some are concerned by accounts of the fresh water it needs, by flaming faucets, by leaked “fugitive methane”, by pollution of the ground with fracking fluid and by damaging earthquakes.
Although I believe that global warming is real, caused by humans, and a threat to our future, these concerns about shale gas are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation such as the controversial but ultimately positive developments in Illinois.
Shale gas can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce a deadly pollution known as particulate matter. Particulate matter is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers, referred to as PM 2.5, are believed to be the most dangerous of these particles as they can lodge deeply into the lungs. Greenhouse warming is widely acknowledged as a serious long-term threat, but PM2.5 is currently harming more people. PM 2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year, including roughly 75,000 in the U.S.
As both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the development and utilization of shale gas, shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible. Environmentalists should recognize the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.
Should environmentalists support fracking? Can shale gas limit air pollution? Please share your views.
For more information on this topic, please see my report “Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking”
Source: http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/can-shale-gas-limit-air-pollution-2/ h/t to Steven Mosher
“There is now seriou study that can point the nonsense the PM2.5 kills 75,000 americans a year. If PM2.5 such a killer the Chinese would be dropping like flies sprayed with insecticide.”
The definitive study on Pm 2.5 actually comes from China and the government is well aware of the problem.
The study published in 2013 looked at the Huai river area. for 30 years north of the river the government supplied free coal for use in cooking and heating. South of the river coal was prohibited.
The 250 million people living north of the river had life expectancies roughly 6 years less than those living
south of the river. Thats the correlation. The causal pathway is also understood. The pm 2.5 particles lodge deep in the lungs and toxins leach into the blood. For example, the pm2.5 particles would leach
heavy metals (Pb) into the bloodstream
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236658999_A_comprehensive_approach_to_the_investigation_of_atmospheric_particulate_PM_2.5__preliminary_results/file/60b7d518bd617d4694.pdf
“shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible.”
Should be advanced by whom? At whose expense? The correct answer is industry, paid for by industry. But the unfortunate implication is by governement, and paid ultimately by taxpayers. And, as usual, coal gets kicked to the curb, to the huge detriment of ratepayers.
“Pathway says:
May 18, 2014 at 10:24 am
There is no need to regulate fracking because there is no problem with fracking. ”
Actually there are problems and industry has addressed them. Hopefully other will learn from the practices in canada and the US.
Some reading
http://anga.us/issues-and-policy/safe-and-responsible-development#.U3j1mvldXfI
If PM2.5 kills 75,000 people in the USA each year, where can we find a graph of the number killed as a function of age. If this is a real effect, I would expect it to be most critical in newborns, who have the smallest lungs.
I imagine that I have about as crummy a set of lungs as anybody, but I am not expecting to drop dead in the street from PM2.5, any time soon.
What is the method of death from PM2.5 ??
Richard A Muller is one of the good guys. He’s definitely not anti-nuclear as a couple of people here have claimed. Read his WSJ article “The Panic Over Fukushima” or go to his web page and read “The Witch of Yucca Mountain.” Go to Youtube and download his video lectures “Physics for Future Presidents.” Download, because you’ll want to watch them over and over.
He’s a warmist but rabid isn’t in his nature. Please stop the character assassination. That’s an alarmist strategy. Address the facts, not the man, in his articles.
Oddly enough, sulfur emissions are good for agriculture. If you buy a farm (no not “buy the farm”) get one close to a coal power plant. The sulfur minimizes blights and pests on your crops. I learned that from Frans Malan, founder of Simonsberg wine estate, who grew up in the heavily polluted Ruhr where blights and mildew were almost unknown.
George E Smith the preferred method of death from PM2.5 is emphysema.
I think we shoud use what we have learned with shale fracturing to design methods of in-situe conversion of coal to natural gas that can be distributed through pipe-lines rather than by barge or train.
“Mike Mellor says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:26 am
Richard A Muller is one of the good guys.”
Mike, I was impressed by Muller’s non-strident but open acknowledgement of his bias. While I disagree with his basic premise on Climate Change, I am intrigued by his willingness to dispute the wild theories of his more excitable brethren. I have, however, been unable to find his website to read the article you mentioned (I have been quite outraged by the governments’ refusal to open Yucca Mountain, despite the billions invested to guarantee its safety).
Do you have a link?
Muller is making a huge mistake if he thinks he can turn on the Anti-Fracking lunatics and not take any heat.
They are the same people he’s been spooning with over the AGW movement.
“Although I believe that global warming is real, caused by humans”
Yet another “scientist” taking a faith based view of AGW … nice resume there by Muller but if he really believes AGW then he’s no scientist … he’s a bird of a feather with all those that think nuke power is safe, GMO’s are safe and vaccines do not casue autism … they follow the real scince in those three subjects then ignore the sloppy or fraudulent “science” around AGW.
Every wonder why ? Its all about the massive amount of money in AGW … he’s terrified of being labeled a skeptic and seeing AGW funding reduced for Berkeley … even though he’s not a climate witch doctor …
Steven Mosher says:
“The definitive study on Pm 2.5 actually comes from China and the government is well aware of the problem”
I’m familiar with that study and others related to the air pollution problem in China. It’s hard to over state the significance of their air pollution problem. It’s for real. I won’t dispute the estimated numbers for premature deaths there or in the US, especially, since I used those stats in an article I wrote a year ago.(they seem high for the US). The main objective of that article was to hammer home the difference between real pollution and CO2.
We know that breathing ambient levels of CO2 have resulted in 0(zero) deaths in all of human history vs XXXXXXXX number of (premature) deaths from legit pollution, which is what we should be focusing on.
It’s quite pleasant to read about fighting real pollution for a change.
Steven Mosher: granted that unregulated use of coal generates huge amounts of disease-causing particulates. But what about the phrase, “the poison is in the dose”? What epidemiological basis exists for the claim that tiny concentrations of soot particulates “cause” anything? Where’s the study offering iorn-clad evidence of that?
“iron”
Bravo for Mosher’s coherent postings. Thank you!
One matter with the Chinese investigations concerning the inverse correlation between elevated PM 2.5 levels and longevity I would like to see addressed more definitely is the cause and effect issue, so that this problem does not travel the same road as CAGW/CO2 agenda.
PM2.5 is a perhaps misleading metric. It includes all particles under 2.5 microns (2.5 x 10^-6) in size. However, particles almost 1000 times smaller (in the nanometer (10^-9 range) may have a greater effect on health than larger particles. Please see the rest of my comment here.
I do not buy the claims of the C in Cagw AT ALL. I studied this topic to better PROVE it to people until I realized the holes in the claims had more weight then the (lack of) data backing the claims.
That said… I think nuclear is absolutely insane for us to use. Thorium or other things that cannot melt down arent perfect either but I can mostly accept those.
I think deep sea drilling is also utterly insane.
what happens if a MASSIVE earthquake, tidal wave, maybe a metoer hits along a coast with all those deep sea well, enough to really shift the ground and break them?? I understand this isnt terribly likely, but it could indeed happen and if it did, holy cow it could make the myth of agw in its most extreme form look like a joke.
With nuclear look at all of them in ohio for instance along a river that historically DOES flood albeit rarely well beyond what it would need to cover several nuke plants. Several other nuke plants in precarious positions as well. And… well japan literally highlights the points Id make here, something totally unexpected but guaranteed long term devastated them.
so… THORIUM damn it!!! it has issues to, but shouldnt lay waste to large tracks of earth if something goes terribly wrong…. put the politics down people.
I said all that to say that, Im not really a fan of fracking either, but its 100 times better then deep sea drilling imo. atleast any potential issues are somewhat contained.
I hold out hope no major geological events happen to a coast with deep wells or close to a bunch of nuke plants before weve moved onto tech that could devastate so much so fast, and so easily if something went wrong well out of our control. THORIUM PEOPLE!!! THORIUM!!!
This study was obviously done some time last year, as the price of natural gas has rising from that stated, $3.5 to $4.5. This is still cheap compared to other countries.
However, the days of $3.5 and lower priced natural gas may be behind us. This last Winter, we used a record amount of natural gas for residential heating.
Supplies went from a big surplus and near record in storage at over 3.8 Tcf(Trillion Cubic Feet) down to precariously low supplies, lowest in 11 years close to .8 Tcf(800 Bcf).
http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html
Extreme and sustained cold in the heating intensive, high population centers of the Midwest and East from November thru March was responsible.
This caused extreme price spikes, especially in January, made much worst by freeze offs:
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/97258-freeze-offs-could-impact-northeast-production-for-months
The extreme cold this last Winter may or may not happen again during the next decade( I believe we will see several frigid Winters at least rivaling last WInter) but barely having enough natural gas, with storage starting so high is reason in itself to ramp up production and storage.
Obama is determined to shut down coal fired power plants. This means less power for electricity needed for residential heating, increasing our dependency on natural gas……and using more of it……so not increasing supplies and storage could leave us vulnerable to high price spikes and shortages.
Using less coal and more natural gas, will necessarily cause natural gas price to go higher, possibly much higher if we have a hot Summer(resulting in high AC demand for electricity generated by natural gas) and can’t inject enough natural gas to rebuild supplies before next heating season.
Another cold Winter will also likely keep prices high.
Fortunately, higher prices will make it more profitable for the natural gas industry, which will respond with more supplies(and much higher profits for them).
The negative factor which is not going to be avoided, is higher to much higher prices for consumers/businesses for natural gas and electricity.
I am glad to see this discussion on real pollution. Should we shut down more coal right now, after coal, natural gas and nuclear combined, BARELY got us thru this last WInter?
Should we focus more on developing cleaner coal technologies?
After all, the US has something like 250 years worth of power generating coal in the ground.
If natural gas can replace coal without it causing a huge, permanent price increase to natural gas, to consumers/businesses and our economy and/or be capable of keeping up with the increase in demand 365 days a year(coal generated power/electricity does not have freeze offs from sub zero cold)……then, go for it.
He’s such a poser, worse than Dr. Curry and they both play both sides like a violin.
This is where skeptics looking for friends go to die. He’ll contradict or offset this statement in a very short time.
Steven Mosher
May 18, 2014 at 10:57 am
I may not agree with you on a number of things but I suspect in an argument with you that you would probably win. Perhaps not all the time though.
Over time I’ve developed quite a bit of respect for your even keel and acquisition of information.
John Ratcliffe
May 18, 2014 at 9:16 am
says:
‘As someone who has severe lung damage (emphysema), I welcome and support any advance…’
Best wishes to you sir. I have it too. May I be so bold as to advise being careful about what the doctors tell you. Thus far I have more than doubled the life expectancy one doctor gave me. Oops, that’s two doctors. Emphysema is like any other disease; an antagonist that requires a gallant antagonist to combat it. I’ve bookmarked your blog. You’re well informed.
Anna
“Steven Mosher: granted that unregulated use of coal generates huge amounts of disease-causing particulates. But what about the phrase, “the poison is in the dose”? What epidemiological basis exists for the claim that tiny concentrations of soot particulates “cause” anything? Where’s the study offering iorn-clad evidence of that?”
I find it interesting that people ask for iron clad. There is no iron clad in science. Not happening. EVER. you will always have uncertain, incomplete and potentially wrong information. If you want iron clad, do math 2+2=4 is iron clad. e=mc^2, well that our best understanding, could be wrong.
But Lets look at the study in question and change a few things.
For 30 years imagine the US government had High taxes east of the mississippi and no taxes
west of the mississippi. Or Gun control east of the river and no gun control.
Then imagine you found this:
East of the mississippi where there were higher taxes imagine we found higher unemployment;
West, lower unemployment. Would you ask for Iron clad? or would this data be enough to
convince you that lower taxes were better?
If east of the mississippi with gun control there were more home invasions than west of the mississippi with no control would you ask for iron clad? would you doubt? or would this be reason
enough to conclude that gun control was bad for preventing home invasion.
In the study for 30 years coal was freely burnt north of the river and prohibited south of the river.
Life expectancy was lower in the north.
If you knew this would you move? If you knew this would you ask for Iron clad?
Simple question really. would YOU act on this knowledge, this uncertain scientific knowledge?
If you wanted to move and the government said NO would you complain?
Now, to your question about “tiny” doses. That’s a good question. Suppose your sister had 5 drinks a day and died from liver cancer. Would you suggest to your children that 5 drinks a day
was ok because nobody showed that teaspoon a day was no threat?
The data we have shows this: PM2.5 is linked to decreased life expectancy. How much is safe?
I dunno, how many cigarettes a day is safe? My moms 78 and smoked. of course dad died at 62 and smoked. Since PM25 is linked to decreased life expectancy and we have good evidence about how this happens ( toxins leaking into the blood stream) chances are its a good thing to reduce Pm25.
More Muller
“Fracking does not require fresh water; it can be done using brine, and brine is available at most locations where fracking is done. The US is gradually switching away from fresh water; we discuss this in our “Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favor Fracking” article.
A comment about passing the tipping point. Skeptics are often criticized for ignoring the science, even when there is a “clear consensus” that global warming is real and caused by humans. We should be equally critical of other departures from the consensus. Sometimes they are correct, but they demand the burden of proof. I am referring here to Mr. Berry’s statement that “we may have passed a tipping point.” I don’t believe we have, and I also believe that the scientific consensus is that we haven’t. That doesn’t mean that an occasional scientist won’t mention his worry about a tipping point … but that does not mean that science has established any such point. Many of the tipping points that have been discussed in the past are now widely discredited. For example, Wallace Broecker, who worried us about the overturning of the thermohaline circulation, later concluded that the threat was not real. “
I glanced at the EPA document that comes up with the estimate of 75,000 deaths due to fine dust. It is a well-intended effort, but I do have some issues with it.
Firstly, they correlate the dust densities measured in 2005-2007 with incremental mortality in that period. However, when fine dust kills, it kills slowly; therefore, for the deaths in that period, it would be much more relevant to look at the dust load 20-40 years back. (That’s one of the few things I still remember from med school long ago. ) I’m not up to speed on recent US environmental regulations, but I would guess that the amounts of dust then were substantially higher than today, and that the impact of the current amounts would accordingly be overstated.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, what does a number of 75,000 deaths really mean? We all have got to die of something, some time. A more relevant measure would be, how many years of life expectancy have been lost? The answer might be somewhere in the report, but it didn’t leap out at me when I sifted it.
Improvements in fracking are increasing well productivity.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1711122-natural-gas-producers-could-soon-be-victims-of-their-own-success
Super fracking (new fracking technology that’s in the pipeline) promises at least a 50% increase in well productivity, a 50% cut in drilling costs, and a 50% cut in water use.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/New-Fracking-Technology-To-Bring-Huge-Supplies-Of-Oil-And-Gas-To-The-Market.html
Solazyme’s new Encapso drill-bore lubricant promises to cut horizontal well-drilling time substantially (and reduce use of less environmentally friendly lubricants):
http://drillwithencapso.com/
Anna Keppa says:
May 18, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Steven Mosher: granted that unregulated use of coal generates huge amounts of disease-causing particulates. But what about the phrase, “the poison is in the dose”? What epidemiological basis exists for the claim that tiny concentrations of soot particulates “cause” anything? Where’s the study offering iorn-clad evidence of that?
—
Excellent question. The EPA report states that there is no clear picture or consensus on this point, but it is noteworthy that the report itself uses an exponential relationship, that is, the adverse health effects grow exponentially with the amount of dust particles. This would suggest that effects observed under extreme conditions like those in China don’t tell us much of anything about the risk that prevails in a typical Western country with proper environmental control measures.