So fracking is no sure bet for improving regional air quality. Second, air quality dynamics around fracking operations are not fully understood, and cumulative health impacts of fracking for nearby residents and workers remain largely unknown. Some of the available research evidence from places such as Utah and Colorado suggests there may be under-appreciated problems with air quality, particularly relating to ozone. Further, natural gas is not a purely clean and renewable source of energy, and so its benefits are only relative.
It is not the answer to truly cleaning up our air, and in fact could give pause to a much-needed and well thought-out transition to wind, solar, geothermal, and other sources that produce fewer or no harmful airborne fine particulates.
That is a gigantic benefit. Further, some research that claims methane is so harmful uses a year time horizon; but over a year time horizon — the way we generally measure global warming potential — methane is not nearly so harmful as claimed.
The number-one priority must be to reduce the reliance on coal, the biggest threat to the atmosphere right now. Fears about emissions leaks are overblown. Even if the true leakage rate were slightly more than EPA and some states estimate, it is not that dramatic. We are developing technology to reduce these leaks and further narrow the gap. Moreover, research-based modeling suggests that even if energy consumption increases overall, the United States still will reap greenhouse benefits as a result of fracking.
And at other points in the life cycle, namely transmission and distribution, there are further ample leaks. Finally, there is no question that the embrace of cheap natural gas will undercut incentives to invest in solar, wind, and other renewables.
PRO FRACKING: It is highly unlikely that well-run drilling operations, which involve extracting oil and gas from thousands of feet down in the ground, are creating cracks that allow chemicals to reach relatively shallow aquifers and surface water supplies. Drinking water and oil and gas deposits are at very different levels in the ground. To the extent that there are problems, we must make sure companies pay more attention to the surface operations and the top to 1, feet of piping.
We are learning and getting better. So this is a technical, well-integrity issue, not a deal-breaker. As for the flammable water, it is a fact that flammable water was a reality years ago in some of these areas.
In terms of disclosure, many of the chemicals are listed on data sheets available to first-responders: The information is disclosed to relevant authorities. There have been numerous reports by citizens across the country of fouled tap water; it is a fact that some of the tap water has even turned bubbly and flammable, as a result of increased methane.
We account for these differences by comparing infants born to mothers living up to 3 kilometers away from a site to those living between 3 and 15 kilometers, both before and after fracking began.
Conducting the analysis this way does a great deal to control for these other factors that affect infant health. Specifically, any explanation besides fracking activity would need to involve differential changes in the determinants of health among infants born to mothers living within 3 kilometers of a fracking site, relative to infants born to mothers living kilometers away, after fracking was initiated.
In other words, at the onset of fracking, mothers living closer to wells would have to suddenly become poorer or use more alcohol or eat less healthy, and they would have to do so more than mothers living farther away. Nevertheless, we further probed the health of babies born after fracking, comparing it to that of their siblings born to the same mother before fracking. Here again, the data shows that the initiation of fracking is associated with an increase in the probability of low birth weight.
The limitation of this test is that it is very demanding of the data, so these results are not significant on their own, but they provide a compelling validation of the main results. The most plausible explanation appears to be localized air pollution caused by the increased truck traffic, the diesel generators powering the sites, or perhaps other emissions, but the evidence on the cause is not decisive.
Indeed, future work exploring the mechanism is warranted. Another important area for future research is to explore whether fracking affects health at other ages. We hope that our paper will open up these lines of inquiry.
Fracking has upended the American energy system. It has brought substantial benefits to the nation in terms of lower energy prices, greater energy security, reduced air pollution, and fewer carbon emissions although its long-run impact on carbon emissions is less clear.
Our research shows that there are also health and other costs to local communities where fracking takes places. Natural gas production, already at new highs thanks to shale gas, is expected to grow 44 percent in the U.
Future Shaped by Fracking. Now countries around the world, including China , the United Kingdom and South Africa, are eyeing shale development as the potential key to unlock a similar windfall of homegrown energy. Debate rages on about whether these worldwide reserves can be tapped safely, and whether environmental damage from fracking natural gas will outweigh the gains from using a fuel that is cleaner than oil or coal, but remains a fossil fuel nonetheless.
A few viewpoints on both sides of the issue follow. Today, the industry supports 1. That number could rise to 3 million by It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. By investing in alternative energies while utilizing natural gas for transportation and energy generation, America can decrease its dependence on OPEC oil, develop the cutting-edge know-how to make wind and solar technology viable, and keep more money at home to pay for the whole thing.
Boone Pickens' proposed energy strategy. This is a full-scale mining operation, and I'm all for it. Now we can get back to work. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals. With nothing more than regulatory policies of the type and stringency simulated here there is no market for these technologies, and the shale gas reduces interest even further.
Under more stringent GHG targets these technologies are needed, but the shale gas delays their market role by up to two decades. Thus in the shale boom there is the risk of stunting these programs altogether. While taking advantage of this gift in the short run, treating gas a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future, it is crucial not to allow the greater ease of the near-term task to erode efforts to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge. When the industry goes south, and it will go south, they just walk away.
All rights reserved.
0コメント