IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v134y2014icp506-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. anonymous, 2013. "Noteworthy: Population, natural gas, birth rates," Southwest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q2, pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Yuntian & Jiang, Su & Zhang, Dongxiao & Liu, Chaoyang, 2017. "An adsorbed gas estimation model for shale gas reservoirs via statistical learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 327-341.
    2. Rathna Hor & Phanna Ly & Agusta Samodra Putra & Riaru Ishizaki & Tofael Ahamed & Ryozo Noguchi, 2021. "Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from a Traditional Nutrient-Rich Cambodian Diet Food Production System Using Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Jang, Hayoung & Jeong, Byongug & Zhou, Peilin & Ha, Seungman & Nam, Dong, 2021. "Demystifying the lifecycle environmental benefits and harms of LNG as marine fuel," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    4. Howard Lee, 2015. "Educating for food security in the UK: Planning for an uncertain future," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 30(3), pages 330-341, May.
    5. Grecu, Eugenia & Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela & Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu, 2018. "The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 691-700.
    6. Apergis, Nicholas, 2019. "The impact of fracking activities on Oklahoma's housing prices: A panel cointegration analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 94-101.
    7. De Silva, P.N.K. & Simons, S.J.R. & Stevens, P., 2016. "Economic impact analysis of natural gas development and the policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 639-651.
    8. Yang, Xianyu & Cai, Jihua & Jiang, Guosheng & Zhang, Yungen & Shi, Yanping & Chen, Shuya & Yue, Ye & Wei, Zhaohui & Yin, Dezhan & Li, Hua, 2022. "Modeling of nanoparticle fluid microscopic plugging effect on horizontal and vertical wellbore of shale gas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PB).
    9. Ramirez, Angel D. & Rivela, Beatriz & Boero, Andrea & Melendres, Ana M., 2019. "Lights and shadows of the environmental impacts of fossil-based electricity generation technologies: A contribution based on the Ecuadorian experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 467-477.
    10. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & O’Grady, Áine, 2017. "Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas extraction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1907-1918.
    11. Wei, Yi-Ming & Kang, Jia-Ning & Yu, Bi-Ying & Liao, Hua & Du, Yun-Fei, 2017. "A dynamic forward-citation full path model for technology monitoring: An empirical study from shale gas industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 769-780.
    12. Elif Oğuz & Ayşe Eylül Şentürk, 2019. "Selection of the Most Sustainable Renewable Energy System for Bozcaada Island: Wind vs. Photovoltaic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-33, July.
    13. Jiang, Yuan & Bhattacharyya, Debangsu, 2016. "Process modeling of direct coal-biomass to liquids (CBTL) plants with shale gas utilization and CO2 capture and storage (CCS)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1616-1632.
    14. Ren, Jingzheng & Tan, Shiyu & Goodsite, Michael Evan & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Dong, Lichun, 2015. "Sustainability, shale gas, and energy transition in China: Assessing barriers and prioritizing strategic measures," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 551-562.
    15. 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.
    16. Westaway, Rob & Younger, Paul L. & Cornelius, Chris, 2015. "Comment on ‘Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas’ by L. Stamford and A. Azapagic. Applied Energy, 134, 506–518, 2014," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 489-495.
    17. Zhong, Dong-Liang & Li, Zheng & Lu, Yi-Yu & Wang, Jia-Le & Yan, Jin, 2015. "Evaluation of CO2 removal from a CO2+CH4 gas mixture using gas hydrate formation in liquid water and THF solutions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 133-141.
    18. Zou, Youqin & Yang, Changbing & Wu, Daishe & Yan, Chun & Zeng, Masun & Lan, Yingying & Dai, Zhenxue, 2016. "Probabilistic assessment of shale gas production and water demand at Xiuwu Basin in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 185-195.
    19. Liu, Wen & Ramirez, Andrea, 2017. "State of the art review of the environmental assessment and risks of underground geo-energy resources exploitation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 628-644.
    20. José A. Caballero & Juan A. Labarta & Natalia Quirante & Alba Carrero-Parreño & Ignacio E. Grossmann, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Water Management in Shale Gas Extraction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    21. Vafadarnikjoo, Amin & Tavana, Madjid & Chalvatzis, Konstantinos & Botelho, Tiago, 2022. "A socio-economic and environmental vulnerability assessment model with causal relationships in electric power supply chains," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    22. Hou, Guofu & Sun, Honghang & Jiang, Ziying & Pan, Ziqiang & Wang, Yibo & Zhang, Xiaodan & Zhao, Ying & Yao, Qiang, 2016. "Life cycle assessment of grid-connected photovoltaic power generation from crystalline silicon solar modules in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 882-890.
    23. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    24. Middleton, Richard S. & Carey, J. William & Currier, Robert P. & Hyman, Jeffrey D. & Kang, Qinjun & Karra, Satish & Jiménez-Martínez, Joaquín & Porter, Mark L. & Viswanathan, Hari S., 2015. "Shale gas and non-aqueous fracturing fluids: Opportunities and challenges for supercritical CO2," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 500-509.

    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. Zou, Youqin & Yang, Changbing & Wu, Daishe & Yan, Chun & Zeng, Masun & Lan, Yingying & Dai, Zhenxue, 2016. "Probabilistic assessment of shale gas production and water demand at Xiuwu Basin in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 185-195.

    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.