Can fracking help reduce CO2?is fracking inherently more contaminating than extracting or transporting crude oil, coal and non-fracking natural gas?Does turning off a light truly help the environment?Will global warming reduce available oxygen?Has fracking caused tap water to become flammable?Is Russia funding environmentalist groups to protest fracking?Has fracking caused hundreds of earthquakes in Oklahoma?Do cows produce more CO2 than cars?Are 19.6 pounds of CO2 produced from burning a gallon of gasoline?Can Genesys' solar amplifier generate 40kW of power from a 200W solar panel?Claim that CO2 is less relevant because it is logarithmic

Counterexample: a pair of linearly ordered sets that are isomorphic to subsets of the other, but not isomorphic between them

Alternatives to Overleaf

Executing a stored procedure which selects and inserts into tables in SQL Server

How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?

How to back up a running remote server?

Will this character get back his Infinity Stone?

function to receive a character input and return date format (with incorrect input)

A Strange Latex Symbol

Why do 401k up to company match, then fill Roth IRA, then finish filling 401k?

What is the point of Germany's 299 "party seats" in the Bundestag?

Can not tell colimits from limits

How can the Zone of Truth spell be defeated without the caster knowing?

How can I practically buy stocks?

Mac Pro install disk keeps ejecting itself

What's the polite way to say "I need to urinate"?

With a Canadian student visa, can I spend a night at Vancouver before continuing to Toronto?

Can someone publish a story that happened to you?

"The cow" OR "a cow" OR "cows" in this context

Rivers without rain

Examples of non trivial equivalence relations , I mean equivalence relations without the expression " same ... as" in their definition?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

Stop and Take a Breath!

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

Killing undead fish underwater



Can fracking help reduce CO2?


is fracking inherently more contaminating than extracting or transporting crude oil, coal and non-fracking natural gas?Does turning off a light truly help the environment?Will global warming reduce available oxygen?Has fracking caused tap water to become flammable?Is Russia funding environmentalist groups to protest fracking?Has fracking caused hundreds of earthquakes in Oklahoma?Do cows produce more CO2 than cars?Are 19.6 pounds of CO2 produced from burning a gallon of gasoline?Can Genesys' solar amplifier generate 40kW of power from a 200W solar panel?Claim that CO2 is less relevant because it is logarithmic













1















The Guardian reports that the UK fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, has resigned and blamed anti-fracking activism for "fear-mongering", saying:




“There is much to be optimistic about how developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy. Sadly today only those who shout get heard.”




To me this seems completely illogical. I would think that fracking can only increase the supply of fossil fuel, that any increase in supply causes some increase in consumption, and that any increase in consumption of fossil fuel causes an increase in CO2.



Is there any validity to her claim?










share|improve this question















migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago


This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.






















    1















    The Guardian reports that the UK fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, has resigned and blamed anti-fracking activism for "fear-mongering", saying:




    “There is much to be optimistic about how developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy. Sadly today only those who shout get heard.”




    To me this seems completely illogical. I would think that fracking can only increase the supply of fossil fuel, that any increase in supply causes some increase in consumption, and that any increase in consumption of fossil fuel causes an increase in CO2.



    Is there any validity to her claim?










    share|improve this question















    migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago


    This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.




















      1












      1








      1








      The Guardian reports that the UK fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, has resigned and blamed anti-fracking activism for "fear-mongering", saying:




      “There is much to be optimistic about how developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy. Sadly today only those who shout get heard.”




      To me this seems completely illogical. I would think that fracking can only increase the supply of fossil fuel, that any increase in supply causes some increase in consumption, and that any increase in consumption of fossil fuel causes an increase in CO2.



      Is there any validity to her claim?










      share|improve this question
















      The Guardian reports that the UK fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, has resigned and blamed anti-fracking activism for "fear-mongering", saying:




      “There is much to be optimistic about how developing technologies – including fracking – can help us accelerate the reduction in CO2 and grow our economy. Sadly today only those who shout get heard.”




      To me this seems completely illogical. I would think that fracking can only increase the supply of fossil fuel, that any increase in supply causes some increase in consumption, and that any increase in consumption of fossil fuel causes an increase in CO2.



      Is there any validity to her claim?







      climate-change power-generation fracking






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Oddthinking

      102k31428532




      102k31428532










      asked 7 hours ago







      krubo











      migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago


      This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.









      migrated from politics.stackexchange.com 6 hours ago


      This question came from our site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          First, let's agree on definitions. Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is a process by which fluids are drawn from the ground. In this context, the fluid would either be oil or natural gas.



          From the article that you link:




          Engel’s resignation letter said: “The UK is currently spending £7bn a year on importing gas – money that is not being used to build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads. Developing our own shale gas industry would mean money going into the Treasury rather than out.”



          She added: “We know shale gas can be extracted safely. [...]




          So she is discussing shale gas which is simply natural gas trapped in shale.



          Also from the article:




          Fracking, she said, had the potential to create jobs, economic security and provide a cleaner alternative to coal and biomass.




          So she is specifically talking about substituting natural gas for coal. Some sources that support natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions:



          • Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal

          • Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

          Note that natural gas itself is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to be cleaner than coal, they have to be careful not to let it leak.



          It also may be worth noting that coal is a base load power, meaning that the plant is started and then run continuously. Turning the plant on and off is a lengthy process and not something that they do in response to variation in demand during the day. Coal power plants have a thermal mass, meaning that they continue producing electricity even after the flame is smothered.



          Natural gas is on demand power. The generators can be smaller and turned on to meet demand. As such, natural gas is a more natural method to use with renewables like solar and wind than coal is. This is because those renewables are on supply power. They provide power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. But if you want power on a calm night, they don't help you.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 2





            I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

            – Fizz
            4 hours ago


















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          First, let's agree on definitions. Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is a process by which fluids are drawn from the ground. In this context, the fluid would either be oil or natural gas.



          From the article that you link:




          Engel’s resignation letter said: “The UK is currently spending £7bn a year on importing gas – money that is not being used to build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads. Developing our own shale gas industry would mean money going into the Treasury rather than out.”



          She added: “We know shale gas can be extracted safely. [...]




          So she is discussing shale gas which is simply natural gas trapped in shale.



          Also from the article:




          Fracking, she said, had the potential to create jobs, economic security and provide a cleaner alternative to coal and biomass.




          So she is specifically talking about substituting natural gas for coal. Some sources that support natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions:



          • Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal

          • Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

          Note that natural gas itself is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to be cleaner than coal, they have to be careful not to let it leak.



          It also may be worth noting that coal is a base load power, meaning that the plant is started and then run continuously. Turning the plant on and off is a lengthy process and not something that they do in response to variation in demand during the day. Coal power plants have a thermal mass, meaning that they continue producing electricity even after the flame is smothered.



          Natural gas is on demand power. The generators can be smaller and turned on to meet demand. As such, natural gas is a more natural method to use with renewables like solar and wind than coal is. This is because those renewables are on supply power. They provide power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. But if you want power on a calm night, they don't help you.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 2





            I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

            – Fizz
            4 hours ago
















          2














          First, let's agree on definitions. Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is a process by which fluids are drawn from the ground. In this context, the fluid would either be oil or natural gas.



          From the article that you link:




          Engel’s resignation letter said: “The UK is currently spending £7bn a year on importing gas – money that is not being used to build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads. Developing our own shale gas industry would mean money going into the Treasury rather than out.”



          She added: “We know shale gas can be extracted safely. [...]




          So she is discussing shale gas which is simply natural gas trapped in shale.



          Also from the article:




          Fracking, she said, had the potential to create jobs, economic security and provide a cleaner alternative to coal and biomass.




          So she is specifically talking about substituting natural gas for coal. Some sources that support natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions:



          • Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal

          • Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

          Note that natural gas itself is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to be cleaner than coal, they have to be careful not to let it leak.



          It also may be worth noting that coal is a base load power, meaning that the plant is started and then run continuously. Turning the plant on and off is a lengthy process and not something that they do in response to variation in demand during the day. Coal power plants have a thermal mass, meaning that they continue producing electricity even after the flame is smothered.



          Natural gas is on demand power. The generators can be smaller and turned on to meet demand. As such, natural gas is a more natural method to use with renewables like solar and wind than coal is. This is because those renewables are on supply power. They provide power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. But if you want power on a calm night, they don't help you.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 2





            I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

            – Fizz
            4 hours ago














          2












          2








          2







          First, let's agree on definitions. Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is a process by which fluids are drawn from the ground. In this context, the fluid would either be oil or natural gas.



          From the article that you link:




          Engel’s resignation letter said: “The UK is currently spending £7bn a year on importing gas – money that is not being used to build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads. Developing our own shale gas industry would mean money going into the Treasury rather than out.”



          She added: “We know shale gas can be extracted safely. [...]




          So she is discussing shale gas which is simply natural gas trapped in shale.



          Also from the article:




          Fracking, she said, had the potential to create jobs, economic security and provide a cleaner alternative to coal and biomass.




          So she is specifically talking about substituting natural gas for coal. Some sources that support natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions:



          • Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal

          • Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

          Note that natural gas itself is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to be cleaner than coal, they have to be careful not to let it leak.



          It also may be worth noting that coal is a base load power, meaning that the plant is started and then run continuously. Turning the plant on and off is a lengthy process and not something that they do in response to variation in demand during the day. Coal power plants have a thermal mass, meaning that they continue producing electricity even after the flame is smothered.



          Natural gas is on demand power. The generators can be smaller and turned on to meet demand. As such, natural gas is a more natural method to use with renewables like solar and wind than coal is. This is because those renewables are on supply power. They provide power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. But if you want power on a calm night, they don't help you.






          share|improve this answer













          First, let's agree on definitions. Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is a process by which fluids are drawn from the ground. In this context, the fluid would either be oil or natural gas.



          From the article that you link:




          Engel’s resignation letter said: “The UK is currently spending £7bn a year on importing gas – money that is not being used to build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads. Developing our own shale gas industry would mean money going into the Treasury rather than out.”



          She added: “We know shale gas can be extracted safely. [...]




          So she is discussing shale gas which is simply natural gas trapped in shale.



          Also from the article:




          Fracking, she said, had the potential to create jobs, economic security and provide a cleaner alternative to coal and biomass.




          So she is specifically talking about substituting natural gas for coal. Some sources that support natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse emissions:



          • Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal

          • Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

          Note that natural gas itself is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So to be cleaner than coal, they have to be careful not to let it leak.



          It also may be worth noting that coal is a base load power, meaning that the plant is started and then run continuously. Turning the plant on and off is a lengthy process and not something that they do in response to variation in demand during the day. Coal power plants have a thermal mass, meaning that they continue producing electricity even after the flame is smothered.



          Natural gas is on demand power. The generators can be smaller and turned on to meet demand. As such, natural gas is a more natural method to use with renewables like solar and wind than coal is. This is because those renewables are on supply power. They provide power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. But if you want power on a calm night, they don't help you.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 6 hours ago









          BrythanBrythan

          8,87653750




          8,87653750







          • 2





            I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

            – Fizz
            4 hours ago













          • 2





            I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

            – Fizz
            4 hours ago








          2




          2





          I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

          – Fizz
          4 hours ago






          I can't help but notice Engel moving the goalposts... some "£7bn a year on importing gas" could be spent on "build schools, hospitals or fix the potholes in our roads". As if shale gas extraction infrastructure would cost nothing. Of course it could be even profitable in the long run, but fossil energy extraction is almost always capital intensive. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/…

          – Fizz
          4 hours ago




          Popular posts from this blog

          Dapidodigma demeter Subspecies | Notae | Tabula navigationisDapidodigmaAfrotropical Butterflies: Lycaenidae - Subtribe IolainaAmplifica

          Constantinus Vanšenkin Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisБольшая российская энциклопедияAmplifica

          Vas sanguineum Index Historia | Divisio | Constructio anatomica | Vasorum sanguineorum morbi (angiopathiae) | Notae | Nexus interniTabula navigationisAmplifica