IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v134y2014icp506-518.html

Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas

Author

Listed:
  • Stamford, Laurence
  • Azapagic, Adisa

Abstract

Exploitation of shale gas in the UK is at a very early stage, but with the latest estimates suggesting potential resources of 3.8×1013 cubic metres – enough to supply the UK for next 470years – it is viewed by many as an exciting economic prospect. However, its environmental impacts are currently unknown. This is the focus of this paper which estimates for the first time the life cycle impacts of UK shale gas, assuming its use for electricity generation. Shale gas is compared to fossil-fuel alternatives (conventional gas and coal) and low-carbon options (nuclear, offshore wind and solar photovoltaics). The results suggest that the impacts range widely, depending on the assumptions. For example, the global warming potential (GWP100) of electricity from shale gas ranges from 412 to 1102g CO2-eq./kWh with a central estimate of 462g. The central estimates suggest that shale gas is comparable or superior to conventional gas and low-carbon technologies for depletion of abiotic resources, eutrophication, and freshwater, marine and human toxicities. Conversely, it has a higher potential for creation of photochemical oxidants (smog) and terrestrial toxicity than any other option considered. For acidification, shale gas is a better option than coal power but an order of magnitude worse than the other options. The impact on ozone layer depletion is within the range found for conventional gas, but nuclear and wind power are better options still. The results of this research highlight the need for tight regulation and further analysis once typical UK values of key parameters for shale gas are established, including its composition, recovery per well, fugitive emissions and disposal of drilling waste.

Suggested Citation

  • Stamford, Laurence & Azapagic, Adisa, 2014. "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 506-518.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:134:y:2014:i:c:p:506-518
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914008745
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence Cathles & Larry Brown & Milton Taam & Andrew Hunter, 2012. "A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 525-535, July.
    2. Ivan Callegari & Gian Pietro Bezzon & Carlo Broggini & Gian Paolo Buso & Antonio Caciolli & Luigi Carmignani & Tommaso Colonna & Giovanni Fiorentini & Enrico Guastaldi & Merita Kaçeli Xhixha & Fabio M, 2013. "Total natural radioactivity, Tuscany, Italy," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 438-443, September.
    3. anonymous, 2013. "Noteworthy: Population, natural gas, birth rates," Southwest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q2, pages 1-11.
    4. Jenner, Steffen & Lamadrid, Alberto J., 2013. "Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 442-453.
    5. Chang, Yuan & Huang, Runze & Ries, Robert J. & Masanet, Eric, 2014. "Shale-to-well energy use and air pollutant emissions of shale gas production in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 147-157.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Liu, Jianye & Li, Zuxin & Luo, Dongkun & Duan, Xuqiang & Liu, Ruolei, 2020. "Shale gas production in China: A regional analysis of subsidies and suggestions for policy," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Chang, Yuan & Huang, Runze & Ries, Robert J. & Masanet, Eric, 2015. "Life-cycle comparison of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption for coal and shale gas fired power generation in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 335-343.
    4. Peters, Jeffrey C., 2017. "Natural gas and spillover from the US Clean Power Plan into the Paris Agreement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 41-47.
    5. Katie Jo Black & Shawn J. McCoy & Jeremy G. Weber, 2018. "When Externalities Are Taxed: The Effects and Incidence of Pennsylvania’s Impact Fee on Shale Gas Wells," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(1), pages 107-153.
    6. Shang, Hua & Jiang, Li & Pan, Xianyou & Pan, Xiongfeng, 2022. "Green technology innovation spillover effect and urban eco-efficiency convergence: Evidence from Chinese cities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Chang, Yuan & Huang, Runze & Masanet, Eric, 2014. "The energy, water, and air pollution implications of tapping China's shale gas reserves," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 100-108.
    8. Xu, Shang & Allen Klaiber, H., 2019. "The impact of new natural gas pipelines on emissions and fuel consumption in China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 49-62.
    9. Stephenson, Eleanor & Doukas, Alexander & Shaw, Karena, 2012. "“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 452-459.
    10. Gail Krantzberg & Stephanie Theriault, 2017. "Would Implementing Responsible Care® Principles Improve the Safety of the Fracking Industry?," International Journal of Sciences, Office ijSciences, vol. 6(06), pages 55-62, June.
    11. Weber, Jeremy G. & Wang, Yongsheng & Chomas, Maxwell, 2016. "A quantitative description of state-level taxation of oil and gas production in the continental U.S," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 289-301.
    12. Campbell, Elliott T., 2015. "Emergy analysis of emerging methods of fossil fuel production," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 57-68.
    13. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    14. Yiqi Zhang & Yuan Chang & Changbo Wang & Jimmy C. H. Fung & Alexis K. H. Lau, 2022. "Life‐cycle energy and environmental emissions of cargo ships," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(6), pages 2057-2068, December.
    15. Healey, Stephen & Jaccard, Mark, 2016. "Abundant low-cost natural gas and deep GHG emissions reductions for the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 241-253.
    16. Raimi, Daniel, 2019. "The Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Increased US Oil and Gas Production," RFF Working Paper Series 19-03, Resources for the Future.
    17. Raj, Ratan & Ghandehariun, Samane & Kumar, Amit & Linwei, Ma, 2016. "A well-to-wire life cycle assessment of Canadian shale gas for electricity generation in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 642-652.
    18. Darrick Evensen & Christopher Clarke & Richard Stedman, 2014. "A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 65-77, March.
    19. Wen Li & Yuxi Liu & Siqi Xiao & Yu Zhang & Lihe Chai, 2018. "An Investigation of the Underlying Evolution of Shale Gas Research’s Domain Based on the Co-Word Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, January.
    20. Kenneth Gillingham & Pei Huang, 2019. "Is Abundant Natural Gas a Bridge to a Low-carbon Future or a Dead-end?," The Energy Journal, , vol. 40(2), pages 1-26, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:134:y:2014:i:c:p:506-518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.