Industry

Shale gas gives no emissions edge over coal

by

For years now, everyone thought that natural gas was cleaner than coal and more benevolent than oil. The blue flame just burned purely and wasn’t nearly as complicated or carboniferous as a lump of, well, bituminous coal…But shale gas, methane trapped in hellishly deep rock formations, has challenged this dated perception. In fact, the very stuff that energy experts champion as North America’s new energy wunderkind may be dirtier than coal, if not as extreme as Alberta’s dirty bitumen.

Rising hydrocarbon costs: A quick summary for policy makers

by

During the past century, world economic growth has depended largely on ever-expanding use of hydrocarbon energy sources: oil for transportation, coal and natural gas for electricity generation, oil and gas for agricultural production. It is no exaggeration to say that the health of the global economy currently hinges on increasing rates of production of these fuels.

A culture of dependency

by

Energy systems do not exist in a social vacuum but are subject to culture and imagination. Anyone interested in promoting an energy transition away from oil and fossil fuels more generally needs to take this fact into account. Unfortunately, energy culture has often been overlooked as an explanation of U.S. energy development.

Fracking – a tale of gas and greed and global warming

by

Every now and again it seems like a solution has been found to our energy problems, one that will allow us all to go on consuming (and wasting!) for decades, if not forever. In the last few years shale gas has bubbled to the top of the pile and is now being widely touted by the oil and gas industry as: a) a clean, green alternative to coal and oil; b) proof that Peak Oil/Gas is many years off; and c) a cheaper use of government subsidies than support for renewables.

A bold move, but our oil problems are just beginning

by

The IEA decision to release 60 million barrels from strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) of member nations has been criticized as politically motivated, too small and too late to matter, or, at best, as a desperate attempt to fend off economic woes. The reality and impact of the decision are more complex than that. The move is a bold, price-suppressing “poke in OPEC’s eye” from nations that have been perpetual price takers in the world oil market. The short-term rationale for the decision, however, should not obscure our real oil problem – geopolitics is combining with economics and geology to put us in an oil crunch that is not likely to abate until our nation moves beyond oil.

Nuclear energy: man’s low-carbon best friend or planet-polluting worst enemy? – July 4

by

-Has the green movement lost its way?
-Radioactive Cesium Is Found in Tokyo Tap Water for First Time Since April
-Revealed: British government’s plan to play down Fukushima
-Don’t believe the spin on thorium being a ‘greener’ nuclear option
-Response: don’t dismiss the potential of thorium nuclear power
-French nuclear power plant explosion heightens safety fears

U.S. nuclear scares, Fukushima update, and De-growth

by

In this episode we talk about three nuclear facilities in the United States hovering on the brink of catastrophe in the last month of June 2011 – due to climate change. We also bring you an update on the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan and we also hear from two panelists from a recent “de-growth” conference in Vancouver, Conrad Schmidt and Bill Rees.

ODAC Newsletter – July 1

by

The fallout from the IEA’s recent decision to release 60 million barrels of oil reserves continued this week. OPEC members criticized the IEA for “breaching its own principles” and interfering with the market. Traders too seemed little impressed with the move as prices recovered last week’s losses, as Greece drew back from the brink. After all, 60 million barrels is less than a day’s global consumption.

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas compared to coal: An analysis of two conflicting studies

by

A recent series of studies and rebuttals have debated the greenhouse gas impacts of shale gas production as compared to coal. Post Carbon Institute Fellow David Hughes, author of the groundbreaking report, "Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century?", provides an analysis of two conflicting studies. His conclusion: Shale gas is worse than coal for the climate over a 30-50 year timeframe, depending upon the technology used.