189
Like most issues associated with fracking, a potential ban is much more complicated than it first appears. Fracking now produces half of the petroleum and almost
three quarters of the natural gas in the United States, and a widespread fracking ban
would have serious consequences for the U.S. energy economy and also for the
environment, with especially negative impacts on climate change. It would not
achieve what environmentalists think it will achieve.
Because O&G opponents have erroneously conflated “fracking” with the production of fossil fuels in general, many environmentalists and some politicians
believe that a call to ban fracking nationwide will encourage renewables to step up
and fill the energy needs of the nation. However wonderful this may sound, it is
highly improbable because it defies economic reality. Most electricity in the U.S. is
currently fired by natural gas and coal (refer back to Fig. 9.4), and most American
vehicles run on gasoline or diesel fuel. As was discussed previously in Chap. 9,
abruptly converting electrical supplies and transportation over to renewables in the
wake of a fracking ban would be both extremely expensive and very disruptive.
There is also a substantial misunderstanding among many people, including
some who should know better that a ban on fracking will fight climate change by
reducing GHG. It almost certainly will not. Those who support this idea are a missing a very important point. The oil and gas shortages resulting from a ban on fracking will require substitutes. Economics dictate that substitute energy sources use
existing infrastructure.
Electricity is generated in gas-fired power plants through the use of gas turbines.
The waste heat from the exhaust makes steam that drives additional turbines.
Generators turned by the turbines make electricity. Neither a wind turbine nor a
solar panel can make steam to run those generators. Power plant operators are
unlikely to walk away from billions of dollars of existing generating infrastructure
to build wind turbines. The obvious and cheapest answer to a shortage of natural gas
from a fracking ban would be to substitute coal as a heat source to make steam for
the turbines, and continue to use the existing generators.
Coal combustion emits nearly twice as much CO 2 per unit of heat energy as natural gas (Fig. 10.1). The significant reduction in GHG emissions by the U.S. over the
past decade (refer back to Fig. 9.6) is largely due to the widespread adoption of
abundant “fracked gas” to replace coal for power generation beginning in 2007.
Coal is a fossil fuel produced by mining, not fracking, and banning fracking will do
nothing about coal. In addition to higher GHG emissions, the coal extraction and
combustion process has more widespread and severe environmental impacts on air,
water, landscapes, ecosystems, and health than natural gas produced from fracked
shale wells.
As domestic oil shortages develop under a fracking ban, demands for motor
vehicle fuels, jet aircraft transportation, and access to petrochemicals like plastic are
not likely to diminish, at least not immediately. People may eventually purchase
electric vehicles or cars powered by hydrogen or some other exotic fuel, but in the
short term, the simplest and quickest way to address a lack of petroleum supply is
to increase imports. This will once again expose the United States to the political
10.1 Should Fracking Be Banned?
Like most issues associated with fracking, a potential ban is much more complicated than it first appears. Fracking now produces half of the petroleum and almost
three quarters of the natural gas in the United States, and a widespread fracking ban
would have serious consequences for the U.S. energy economy and also for the
environment, with especially negative impacts on climate change. It would not
achieve what environmentalists think it will achieve.
Because O&G opponents have erroneously conflated “fracking” with the production of fossil fuels in general, many environmentalists and some politicians
believe that a call to ban fracking nationwide will encourage renewables to step up
and fill the energy needs of the nation. However wonderful this may sound, it is
highly improbable because it defies economic reality. Most electricity in the U.S. is
currently fired by natural gas and coal (refer back to Fig. 9.4), and most American
vehicles run on gasoline or diesel fuel. As was discussed previously in Chap. 9,
abruptly converting electrical supplies and transportation over to renewables in the
wake of a fracking ban would be both extremely expensive and very disruptive.
There is also a substantial misunderstanding among many people, including
some who should know better that a ban on fracking will fight climate change by
reducing GHG. It almost certainly will not. Those who support this idea are a missing a very important point. The oil and gas shortages resulting from a ban on fracking will require substitutes. Economics dictate that substitute energy sources use
existing infrastructure.
Electricity is generated in gas-fired power plants through the use of gas turbines.
The waste heat from the exhaust makes steam that drives additional turbines.
Generators turned by the turbines make electricity. Neither a wind turbine nor a
solar panel can make steam to run those generators. Power plant operators are
unlikely to walk away from billions of dollars of existing generating infrastructure
to build wind turbines. The obvious and cheapest answer to a shortage of natural gas
from a fracking ban would be to substitute coal as a heat source to make steam for
the turbines, and continue to use the existing generators.
Coal combustion emits nearly twice as much CO 2 per unit of heat energy as natural gas (Fig. 10.1). The significant reduction in GHG emissions by the U.S. over the
past decade (refer back to Fig. 9.6) is largely due to the widespread adoption of
abundant “fracked gas” to replace coal for power generation beginning in 2007.
Coal is a fossil fuel produced by mining, not fracking, and banning fracking will do
nothing about coal. In addition to higher GHG emissions, the coal extraction and
combustion process has more widespread and severe environmental impacts on air,
water, landscapes, ecosystems, and health than natural gas produced from fracked
shale wells.
As domestic oil shortages develop under a fracking ban, demands for motor
vehicle fuels, jet aircraft transportation, and access to petrochemicals like plastic are
not likely to diminish, at least not immediately. People may eventually purchase
electric vehicles or cars powered by hydrogen or some other exotic fuel, but in the
short term, the simplest and quickest way to address a lack of petroleum supply is
to increase imports. This will once again expose the United States to the political
10.1 Should Fracking Be Banned?