Lately there has been much ado about Hillary Clinton’s support for the fracking industry and how that squares with her record on environmental issues. While it may be easy to view the various reports about the risks involved — and there are many — and draw a negative conclusion about the industry as a whole, I propose that a closer inspection of all the risks and benefits may cast a different light on the subject and make a case for Secretary Clinton’s nuanced approach. This, my first diary (so be gentle), is by no means an exhaustive examination of the all the risks and rewards. Just a few to get the conversation started.
MIT students participating in Solving Complex Problems, a course — according to their website — “designed to provide students the opportunity to work as part of a team that proposes solutions to a complex, or “unsolvable”, problem that requires a strongly interdisciplinary approach”, have taken on Global Water Security as their 2017 mission. To achieve this mission, they have researched engineering, political, economical, and social solutions. One of the engineering solutions they proposed was the expansion, and regulation, of fracking.
According to their research, natural gas is advantageous because it is much less water intensive than most electrical power technologies, including water for production of fuel. Natural gas plants use about 200 gallons of water per megawatt hour, versus about 500 gallons for coal, almost 800 gallons for nuclear, and just over 800 for solar.
They also state that electricity derived from natural gas emits 50% less greenhouse gasses than coal. Considering that 44% of the world’s power comes from coal, a shift to natural gas would help countries meet their carbon budgets. The U.S. has lowered it’s CO2 emissions to their lowest levels since 1994 due to transitioning to natural gas from coal. Currently 24% of the world’s energy comes from natural gas, and 60 -80% of that is from fracking. From the study:
While it is unlikely that the world will quickly shift to renewable sources of energy, a transition from coal to natural gas produced by hydraulic fracturing would put the world on a path towards energy sustainability. This fact along with projections from the US Energy Information Administration suggests that natural gas will take a leading role in world energy consumption in the near future. This will present a serious hazard to the future of water security if current practices aren’t changed. Fracking, as currently practiced, can be hazardous to both the environment and human health. The purpose of this article is to identify these problems and present solutions that would allow natural gas to become a realistic and safe energy source for the near future.
scripts.mit.edu/...
The concerns about contaminated water tables are founded, but most incidents are due to poor drilling techniques and lax inspections. Stronger regulations and oversight would eliminate many of the dangers caused by fracking. Still, it is seen by most, even it’s most ardent supporters, as a “bridge” fuel — something better and cleaner than other fossil fuels — to help curb greenhouse emissions while we continue to invest in wind, solar, and nuclear energy and improve energy efficiency.
Even taking the risks into consideration, I think it is reasonable to believe that Secretary Clinton’s nuanced support for the industry, both at home and abroad, can be seen as pragmatic and sensible when taking global economics and the environment into account.