Coal versus Natural Gas

Some of you know that I know there is no such thing as “clean coal”. This marketing tool is making its rounds and shouldn’t. In the U.S. coal has been the Big Papa for generating electricity. As recently as 2006, it provided 49 percent of the electric capacity while natural gas usage comprised 20 percent, nuclear power 19 percent, hydroelectric power 7 percent and wind/solar 2 percent.  A major reason why natural gas has not surpassed coal nation-wide is probably the lack of sufficient infrastructure as more pipelines are needed to carry natural gas to large consuming areas like the Midwest, Southeast and Northeast. About half the gas produced in Texas is exported to other states.

Coal advocates point out that the major advantage coal may have over natural gas is the price. But coal accounts for almost 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Coals’ pollution begins when it is mined, continues when it is burned and lasts long after it has been used.

Ever heard of hydrofracking? Me either. Supposedly it’s a relatively new drilling method which involves injecting huge amounts of water mixed with sand and chemicals at high pressures, to break up rock formations that release natural gas.

Natural gas offers some real environmental advantages over coal as coal-fired power plants without updated equipment are a major source of radioactive pollution. Coal mines annually produce millions of tons of toxic waste.

Energy companies are stepping over themselves to drill this new way. Environmentalists say using natural gas will help slow climate change because it burns more cleanly than coal and oil. Some see this as a source of jobs. I see it as a way of giving oil producing countries the finger.

This is how it works – gas is trapped deep underground in numerous tiny bubbles between thin layers of shale rock. Drilling companies have only recently developed the kind of technology that will enable equipment to unlock the enormous reserves of gas in these wells. There is supposed to be so much gas underground that the U.S. could heat homes and buildings, generate electricity and power vehicles for about a hundred years. Yep, you read this correctly – 100 years!

But, (and you know there is a but) this type of drilling carries significant environmental risks. A well, with hydrofracking, can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens and radioactive elements. Some carcinogenic material can be added to this wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

What am I saying? Anywhere from 10-40 percent of the water sent down the well during hydrofracking returns to the surface, carrying drilling chemicals, very high levels of salt and sometimes radioactive materials. The wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants that are not designed to treat it, is discharged into rivers that supply drinking water.

Although hydrofracking is probably going to be a godsend later, right now some of the problems with this type of drilling impact the environment and pose major challenges to disposing of waste.

Natural gas has overcome many obstacles but it has so many advantages in the energy field that it will take decades for competing fuels to catch up. The total positive economic impact that natural gas has in this country is the creation of thousands of jobs.The facts remain clear:  natural gas is much cleaner than coal; it is plentiful; it is here in the United States.

Peace.

JoAnn