Comments on: Study Shows No Long-Term Climate Benefit From Shale Gas Revolution

By: Steeple

Steeple — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:22:00 +0000

It’s not a winning argument for those who advance it to describe low natural gas and power prices as a problem. The average person would prefer to pay less for their utilities, and that’s a good thing for our economy given how anemic the recovery is. Hopefully renewables will rise to the challenge.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:56:00 +0000

Poorly worded yes, but I think the idea is that with no cost for the externalized cost of carbon. Gas will result in less new renewables being built.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:46:00 +0000

So why would Nat Gas displace Nuclear or Renewable power, both of which have near zero incremental operating costs?

The Nuclear answer has nothing to do with shale and everything to do with the aging of our nuclear fleet. If we want to replace those plants, there is nothing stopping us.

How does Nat Gas displace Renewables? Would love to hear that answer. Now if the author means to say that Nat Gas out competes Renewables on a new build basis, that is easily understood. But displaces?

US Carbon emissions are in decline thanks to nat gas for coal substitution along with better auto fuel economy.

If Carbon emissions are a problem, go talk to China and India. That’s where the growth is coming from.