The debate about onshore gas extraction often becomes a debate about scientific measurements and facts, safety and risks. But to understand why gas mining is such a bad lousy and undesirable way to produce energy, you must first have a clearer picture of what the alternative to gas is: Renewable energy. The advantages of renewables are just as important to bring into the debate as the disadvantages of the unconventional gas production.
Dr Anthony Ingraffea does just that in this presentation, where he focuses on the methane leakage in the unconventional gas extraction method and on the move to renewables.
“When the dust clears and the science is done, somewhere around five and six percent of all the natural gas that is produced today never gets burned, it gets vented. And that is really bad for climate change.”
» The slides he shows can be seen here (though in different order): Ingraffea_NYS_Green_Building_Conference_march_2014.pdf
When all environmental and human costs are included, the cost of fracking is simply too high, explains Dr Anthony Ingraffea. He not only talks about the local effect on water, the health repercussions and the global effect on the climate, he also goes in depth with what an alternative vision to New York’s energy future would look like. And why it makes better sense economically.
Dr Anthony Ingraffea asks for a rational cost-benefit analysis of onshore gas extraction.
“Let’s talk about risk,” he says: “Accidents will happen. How do you cost the risk?”
According to Anthony Ingraffea, rejecting onshore gas extraction is about moving renewables faster to relay climate change. He explains what could be an alternative to shale gas for New York State, how New York could run on 10 percent (4,000) onshore wind turbines, 40 percent (12,000) offshore wind turbines, 10 percent concentrated solar, 10 percent solar PV plants, 6 percent residential rooftops, 12 percent commercial government rooftops, 5 percent geothermal, 0.5 percent wave, 1 percent tidal and 5.5 percent hydro.
“We will be an all electricity state. This can be done. And it will create roughly 58,000 permanent fulltime jobs. Reduce airpollution mortality. 4,000 people in New York die from air emissions.
Now you are sitting there saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute! That is the heck of a lot of work!’
Compared to what?
50.000 to 100.000 wells? That is the hell of a lot of work! 8.000 to 16.000 pads? That is a lot of cement, concrete, a lot of earth moving, a lot of CO2. 500 to 1,000 compressor stations? Thousands of miles of new pipelines, thousands of incidents of well water contamination, increase of New York’s contribution to global warming… and this is the kicker: a hundred tons of steel per well, and once they put it down there, it is gone forever. Whereas anything you build on the surface is recyclable.”
“Renewables will stabilize energy prices and improve energy security. We own the wind, the sun, the water. Their fuel cost is zero. It is cost effective. The $486 billion price tag is paid off entirely in health-cost and climate-cost savings of $36 billion per year over 14 years. Emission decreases would reduce 2050 climate costs by billions of dollars per year.”
Dr Anthony Ingraffea argueed against the proposition that “New York State and/or Starkey Township should allow High Volume Shale Gas Extraction” at a debate sponsored by the Town of Starkey held on 23 January 2013 at the high school auditorium in Dundee, New York, USA.
