Guy Shrubsole shows the Spectator how to do real environmental journalism. Hint: It's not the way they do it.
Another week, another blast of hot air from Britain’s small coterie of ‘alternative energy’ fantasists.
I’m not talking about environmentalists here – who have been advocating truly alternative energy, in the form of clean and renewable power, for decades. I’m referring to the new breed of advocates, for a very old form of fossil fuel.
They are the shale gas lobby, and the ardour with which they tout their product is matched only by the myths they tell to promote it and discredit renewables.
On Friday the Spectator published a full-length editorial in support of shale gas, which gave the impression that Britain is a land overflowing with milk, honey and shale gas, and that it’s just those pesky greens stopping us from exploiting the bounty.
The Spectator claimed that:
“Britain’s recoverable reserves are estimated at 20 trillion cubic feet, which will produce perhaps enough energy for the next 100 years.”
The quoted volume of gas is agreed upon by the US Energy Information Administration, but at current rates of gas use the UK would burn through this quantity in just 5.6 years – somewhat shy of the Spectator’s ‘shale of the century’ dream.
Meanwhile, the Spectator’s editors are deluded about the nature of the environmental crisis.
They seem to imagine that all those who care about the future of the planet yearn for less energy (“The energy-scarce world of [environmentalists’] dreams has been put off for a couple of centuries at least… There may be no energy crisis after all.”) But energy scarcity has never been the problem.
Regardless of whether world oil production has peaked or not yet, there’s no question that we have far more fossil fuels than we need to thoroughly trash the climate. The real problem is transitioning to carbon-free power fast enough to avoid climate destabilisation.
And shale gas, despite the blithe assurances of the Spectator that it is “not at odds with carbon reduction policies”, is not going to help here.
The reason why is a simple calculation. How much space is there in the UK’s remaining ‘carbon budget’ to allow for an expansion in our use of shale gas?
Let’s leave aside the highly questionable assertion made by the Spectator that shale gas has a carbon footprint half that of coal – as peer-reviewed studies and shale well monitoring strongly suggests, the methane leakage from drilling for shale scuppers its claims to be a relatively clean fuel.
But let’s assume that shale gas has the same carbon footprint as conventional gas – and as Green Alliance has carefully shown, there’s still no room for more of it in our energy mix. We already had a dash for gas in the 1990s and have pocketed most of the emissions savings that can be had from simple fuel-switching.
To cut carbon further we need to install large amounts of zero- or very low-carbon generating kit: renewables, nuclear, or power stations fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
On nuclear and CCS the Spectator is silent; but it has decided to fix its baleful eye upon renewables, and direct its ire at the cheapest, most efficient and most abundant form of renewable energy we currently have in the UK – wind power.
It complains that wind power cannot possibly match its (erroneous) claims for shale gas and provide the UK with enough power for the next century – despite the fact that the UK has more than enough wind blowing across its landscapes and over its territorial waters to make us a net exporter of electricity.
It moans that renewables are heavily subsidised, unlike shale gas exploration – omitting to mention the huge public subsidies and tax breaks that oil, coal and gas extraction receives worldwide.
Still, in fairness to the Spectator, they are not alone in spouting myths about wind.
In this they have been recently joined by Sir Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust, who in an outburst yesterday stated that wind power was one of the “least efficient” forms of renewable energy.
Jenkins is showing himself to be energy illiterate: modern wind turbines are very efficient at converting gusts of wind into electrical energy. He may mean that wind power is variable – it doesn’t generate at a consistent rate – but as the National Grid has stated, dealing with large quantities of variable supply is well within the ken of modern engineering.
Jenkins’ statements come hot on the heels of a letter signed by 100 Conservative MPs calling on David Cameron to cut subsidies for onshore wind power, reduce household bills as a result, and give the cash to develop “other types of renewable energy production” instead.
In this, the honourable members showed themselves to be economically illiterate: onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy around, and whilst I’m all for developing more predictable sources like tidal and wave power, they aren’t going to supply more than a fraction of our energy needs any time soon.
The economic crisis has helped to push the climate crisis down the political agenda – and rekindled fears about fuel poverty and rising energy costs.
But a sustainable and equitable solution to our energy problem isn’t going to come from the shale gas fantastists and wind sceptics. It’s going to come from investing in our nascent renewables industry and taking advantage of a natural resource we have in abundance – wind power.
And if the Spectator, Jenkins and Conservative MPs want a real villain to blame for rising energy bills, they should stop tilting at windmills, and join the growing alliance – now spanning the Daily Mail to green activists and progressive campaigners – that is calling out the profiteering of the Big Six energy companies.
• Climate change sceptics and rural romantics – the Tories are a shambles on renewable energy – Kevin Meagher, February 7th 2012
• KPMG abandons anti-wind pro-gas energy report – WillAlex Hern, February 7th 2012
• Durban’s a letdown, Canada’s a dropout, and Russia’s leaking methane – Alex Hern, December 13th 2011
• Tabloid attacks on green movement mean we have to raise our game – Reg Platt, November 29th 2011
• Britain is the world leader in wind power – Chris Tarquini, January 21st 2011
32 Responses to “Shale gas fantasists and wind sceptics need to get real”
Guy Shrubsole
Hi Nick, thanks for your comments. But some quick questions I’d like you to answer:
– What’s your source for saying that “We can use gas to EXCEED carbon targets to 2030?”. (I presume you mean that we can somehow deploy gas and *still* almost entirely decarbonise the power sector, as the Committee on Climate Change recommends? See http://downloads.theccc.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/4th%20Budget/4th-Budget_Chapter6.pdf)
– Can you point me to an estimate of the UK’s shale gas reserves that *doesn’t* rely on the estimates of a shale gas drilling company looking to boost its share price? I’m aware that the UK Government is reviewing its estimate of British shale gas reserves, but it hasn’t reported yet. So unless you can point to an independent review that comes close to the 200T figure, would you acknowledge that Caudrilla’s estimates are pretty partial?
– Could you also state whether you’ve consulted for any shale gas, or conventional oil and gas companies, in the past year?
I’m sorry that I come across to you as obsessed with the Spectator. I just don’t think that a well-funded and influential news publication should be allowed to parrot these myths unchallenged.
Thanks
Guy
Nick Grealy
Guy, number one I assume that you mean to say that my financing, which is well known and admitted in the national press, means that whatever I say can be safely ignored? Everyone has to eat. I think you’d find Greenpeace have far more support from oil and gas companies than I do!
If you can point me to any political parties, foundations, think tank supporters or eccentric millionaires who can provide a new revenue stream, it would be much appreciated.
The CCC link didn’t work. I know that the CCC simply have never even considered the implication of replacing coal with natural gas, or at least not when I asked them a year ago. David McKay and the DECC database similarly don’t allow you to perform that basic exercise, nor does DECC allow putting in a low gas price.
I think that both need to be done. Replacing coal in generation, should in theory, cut overall carbon by 30% or more. Throw in the cuts in carbon from more efficient dispatch of gas generation and you get a bit more. Throw in energy efficiency and you naturally get far more. Gas generation will also naturally be distributed locally in small scale gen sets: That cuts transmission losses, and of course carbon. Finally, not even considered here in the UK is the substantial benefits that natural gas vehicle can provide in the transport sector. The key in the transport sector is to concentrate on where electric vehicles simply won’t work: Trucking, buses, taxi and fleet vehicles make up 40% of transport related carbon. Creating an LNG (for heavy trucks) and CNG for other vehicles would mean the total replacement of diesel fuel by 25% lower carbon and clean burning natural gas. Very cheaply done as well, with the trucking sector needing only 50 filling stations to cover all of Britain. The 50% lower cost of fuel will keep truckers happy too. Oops, I forgot about how LNG can also replace bunker fuel in marine shipping. Add all this together and 2030 isn’t a scary place. Carbon wise it will be hardly different from the renewable/nuke/CCS scenario with three important differences a) it may actually work b) it’s far cheaper and c) it doesn’t literally bury captured carbon or nuclear waste to poison the earth a couple of hundred years off in the future.
The question of UK reserves means drawing analogies from international shale. The UK is now where the US was four to five years ago and Argentina and Australia were as little as a year ago. At that time, the expert opinion said the resources of shale gas were minimal and not worth the effort. Then using new technology everything changed overnight and suddenly all three countries have shale reserves 40 to 50 times previous estimates. Focusing on the UK’s “official figures” of 150 BCM is not relevant.
Your dismissal of Cuadrilla’s figures as mere stock ramping don’t measure up. Firstly Cuadrilla is a privately held company. Second, public companies can’t make egregious statements without something to back it up. My understanding of Cuadrilla (and Tamboran’s in NI and Ireland) is that they wished to influence the debate to point to the potential benefits in an environment where the only thing going on in the press was taps on fire, earthquakes, Dick Cheney forcing chemicals down your throat etc etc.
I would point you to the published statements of the British Geological Survey since I of course am suspect:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-12/u-k-shale-drilling-won-t-start-dangerous-earthquakes.html
The U.K. could have more shale gas the previously thought, Stephenson said. The British Geological Survey is reviewing its estimates for U.K. onshore shale gas resources. The survey originally estimated that there is about 150 billion cubic meters of shale gas onshore, compared with about 300 billion cubic meters of conventional gas resources.
Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. says it’s found more natural gas trapped in the shale rock around Blackpool in northwest England than Iraq has in its entire reserves.
“There is much more shale than we thought under Blackpool,” the British Geological Survey’s Stephenson said at the briefing, adding more research remains to be done on the impact of fracking.
Or is he a fantasist too?
Nick Grealy
I tried replying before, it either got lost through my IT incompetence or yours. Life is too short to do it again.
But here is something from a dangerous shale gas fantasist, hope you don’t throw this baby out with the bathwater simply because I told you:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-12/u-k-shale-drilling-won-t-start-dangerous-earthquakes.html
The U.K. could have more shale gas the previously thought, Stephenson said. The British Geological Survey is reviewing its estimates for U.K. onshore shale gas resources. The survey originally estimated that there is about 150 billion cubic meters of shale gas onshore, compared with about 300 billion cubic meters of conventional gas resources.
“There is much more shale than we thought under Blackpool,” the British Geological Survey’s Stephenson said at the briefing,
Andrew Gillett
Shale gas fantasists and wind sceptics need to get real http://t.co/4rCpMH4N
Is Kevin Rudd the comeback kid? | Left Foot Forward
[…] also: • Shale gas fantasists and wind sceptics need to get real – Guy Shrubsole, February 14th […]