The true cost of shale gas should include carbon capture

Behaving responsibly to avoid a legacy of pollution for future generations

To help meet carbon emissions targets, many countries are burning more gas and less coal because natural gas emits 57 percent less carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (kWh) than coal does.

The resulting demand for gas is increasing prices and making less accessible reserves, such as shale gas, more attractive.

Access to more gas is already having a positive effect on some economies but is undermining investment in renewables, which are seen as more expensive. This will inevitably lock the world into the longer-term use of gas, ultimately creating more emissions unless the development of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” technology can be tied to the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes carbon capture technology could contribute as much as 20 percent of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions needed to limit a global temperature rise of just two degrees Celsius by 2050.

Do you think the cost of developing technology to combat emissions and training facilities to ensure the long-term safe storage of carbon should be factored into the overall cost of gas?

Generous tax breaks for fracking companies in the UK 

Image credit: mihtiander / 123RF Stock Photo