Lawson says let's forge ahead with shale gas...

[M]

Can I play devils advocate and ask some questions here, please?

I appreciate that shale gas 'may' be cheap, and that will help the poor etc. But how cheap?
Will it be cheap enough to add CCS and still be viable?
If so, then it looks like a good idea 'if' it doesn't screw up the environment getting it out?

I'd be interested to know what the expected generation costs of electricity from shale gas with CCS are? If cheap enough and clean enough then great, but I don't get Lawson's attitude of shutting down all future renewables development. What's wrong with having a Plan B, surely as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer he appreciates keeping a little something in reserve?

Cheap gas, sounds suspiciously like nuclear 'too cheap to meter'. Why not wait till it arrives before abandoning all reasonable alternatives.

Mart.

[martin]

it's a fossil fuel - arguably a little less polluting than coal, but still a fossil fuel - it ain't "clean" in it's extraction (as the US experience has shown), nor in it's use......

[renewablejohn]

If the government got its act together and insisted that all the new gas fired power stations approved for building had to include in the costs a hydrogen plant plus carbon capture plus methane injection then an argument could be made for a transition from fracking gas/ coal gas to a bio gas/ syn gas economy. It will never happen as UK Gov does not do long term planning.

[smegal]

If the government got its act together and insisted that all the new gas fired power stations approved for building had to include in the costs a hydrogen plant plus carbon capture plus methane injection then an argument could be made for a transition from fracking gas/ coal gas to a bio gas/ syn gas economy. It will never happen as UK Gov does not do long term planning.

Hydrogen plant is pointless to integrate with a gas plant, gas is quite good at ramping so storage is wasteful.
Methane injection happens at the point of creation not at a power station, it is also already REALLY well subsidised (for biogas)
Don't get me started on CCS.

[dhaslam]

BBC radio downloads are available  outside the UK
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/today/today_20120124-1024a.mp3

Shale Gas is very unlikely to be a solution in heavily populated countries, fracking is banned in France and Bulgaria already.   Even in the US,  despite the exemption from  normal pollution laws in some states,   court proceedings  for compensation  by  nearby residents will eventually catch up.    I suppose Nigel Lawson is only reflecting the views  of a generation of politicians that didn't have to worry very much about energy.

[dimengineer]

If the government got its act together and insisted that all the new gas fired power stations approved for building had to include in the costs a hydrogen plant plus carbon capture plus methane injection then an argument could be made for a transition from fracking gas/ coal gas to a bio gas/ syn gas economy. It will never happen as UK Gov does not do long term planning.

Also, it would make elecricity more expensive, and given all the screams about "fuel poverty" - its not going to happen - ever.
The elephant in the room on this one is the fact that a substantial amount of our housing stock uses gas for heating. So cheap gas will always win (at least for the next 50 years). I'm wary of fracking as there do seem to be a lot of issues, but i'm also not in favour of knee jerk "ban it" reactions

[rt29781]

Hydrogen plant is pointless to integrate with a gas plant, gas is quite good at ramping so storage is wasteful.
Methane injection happens at the point of creation not at a power station, it is also already REALLY well subsidised (for biogas)
Don't get me started on CCS.

I am assuming the hydrogen is there to reduce the CO2 to CO, MeOH or Methane.  How can that be a bad thing?

We need to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, that really needs to be understood.  We are on a really dangerous path at the moment.  A few floods is the least of our worries if the adverse weather ramps up wholesale damage will be done in massive storms.

[smegal]

Hydrogen plant is pointless to integrate with a gas plant, gas is quite good at ramping so storage is wasteful.
Methane injection happens at the point of creation not at a power station, it is also already REALLY well subsidised (for biogas)
Don't get me started on CCS.

I am assuming the hydrogen is there to reduce the CO2 to CO, MeOH or Methane.  How can that be a bad thing?

We need to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, that really needs to be understood.  We are on a really dangerous path at the moment.  A few floods is the least of our worries if the adverse weather ramps up wholesale damage will be done in massive storms.

As much as I like the sabaiter reaction. I think integrating tech like this into power stations is like heating your house by burning £5 notes, renewable and it works but it isn't cost effective.

[dimengineer]

Hydrogen plant is pointless to integrate with a gas plant, gas is quite good at ramping so storage is wasteful.
Methane injection happens at the point of creation not at a power station, it is also already REALLY well subsidised (for biogas)
Don't get me started on CCS.

I am assuming the hydrogen is there to reduce the CO2 to CO, MeOH or Methane.  How can that be a bad thing?

Being slightly flippant, CO isn't too clever - being toxic  . And it reverts to CO2 fairly quickly

[renewablejohn]

Hydrogen plant is pointless to integrate with a gas plant, gas is quite good at ramping so storage is wasteful.
Methane injection happens at the point of creation not at a power station, it is also already REALLY well subsidised (for biogas)
Don't get me started on CCS.

I am assuming the hydrogen is there to reduce the CO2 to CO, MeOH or Methane.  How can that be a bad thing?

We need to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, that really needs to be understood.  We are on a really dangerous path at the moment.  A few floods is the least of our worries if the adverse weather ramps up wholesale damage will be done in massive storms.

As much as I like the sabaiter reaction. I think integrating tech like this into power stations is like heating your house by burning £5 notes, renewable and it works but it isn't cost effective.

Well there is no point in putting the hydrogen plant next to the wind turbine as you have no concentrated CO2 available whereas at a gas plant the gas you have just burnt to produce electric can have its carbon captured then once you turn it into methane you already have the infrastructure on site for direct gas injection. Works in Germany with 60% efficiency why not here, provides the storage capacity we desperately need without any new pumped storage and solves the CO2 problem as an added bonus.

[rt29781]

Well there is no point in putting the hydrogen plant next to the wind turbine as you have no concentrated CO2 available whereas at a gas plant the gas you have just burnt to produce electric can have its carbon captured then once you turn it into methane you already have the infrastructure on site for direct gas injection. Works in Germany with 60% efficiency why not here, provides the storage capacity we desperately need without any new pumped storage and solves the CO2 problem as an added bonus.

The Germans seem to be doing most things right at the moment.  I wonder if they have laws to constrain lobbyists as well....

[pdf27]

Not sure how burning methane to emit CO2 helps us reduce our CO2 target.  That has to be spin.

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine produces electricity at ~570 g/kWh
Current UK Coal plants (subcritical) produce electricity at ~1500 g/kWh

In some ways, carbon capture & storage is easier with natural gas as well - the flue gas doesn't contain nasty impurities like SOx, NOx and ash. Steam-Methane reforming is another option - a unit to do this is currently being built in Texas that will sequester a million tonnes of CO2 per year, and once you have large quantities of H2 gas that lets you do various clever things with fuel cell cars, embedded generation, etc.

[martin W]

Didn't think this was sensible to stick in a new topic as its still related to Fracking and 'cheap' gas.

From Reuters 17th April 2012
"The number of earthquakes in the central United States rose "spectacularly" near where oil and gas drillers disposed of wastewater underground, a process that may have caused geologic faults to slip, U.S. government geologists report."


Basically the report states that manatued 3 or greater earthquakes have risen 3 fold since 2000 in the american mid continent and its not a natural cycle!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417

[hjd10]

Dash for Gas part 2?  I hope that our leaders are really looking for new solutions for our energy problems....... the new gas might bide us some time for a few years.
Even if you don't believe in Global warming, the fossil fuels won't last forever!

[SimonHobson]

... the report states that manatued 3 or greater earthquakes have risen 3 fold since 2000 in the american mid continent ...

But what it doesn't say is what the magnitude distribution is - and without that information you really, really cannot draw any conclusions. I'm not saying there is no problem, and I'm not saying there is, but here's one fairly obvious scenario :
You are drilling and fracking rocks under stress. As you introduce flaws in the rock, it relieves the stress by moving - ie a small earthquake (note in the report, it says magnitude 3 is the threshold of detection, I assume by a person stood on the ground). These small events are unlikely to cause much, if any, damage.

Leave the stress to build up, and eventually it is relieved in one big go - the sort of earthquake that makes buildings collapse etc.

Very simplistic comparison, and I'm sure the experts are considering all this, but the report headline alone really doesn't mean anything as there's no information on whether these small quakes are actually having )or are likely to have) an effect on the real, natural, big ones. If the effect were to cause an increase in stress on a faultline and trigger a natural quake earlier than it would otherwise have done, then that could possibly be a good thing if it reduces it's magnitude.

A bit like, I recall a report on TV from some years ago where the authorities were deliberately starting forest fires. The reasoning was that they could start them when they wanted (such as when things aren't tinder dry) and burn a small area at a time. The result would be a reduction in dead wood etc on the ground, and significantly lessen the scale (ferocity and size) of the fires they weren't starting themselves.