Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas in the UK: Current Situation and Future Scenarios

被引:30
作者
Cooper, Jasmin [1 ]
Stamford, Laurence [1 ]
Azapagic, Adisa [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Sch Chem Engn & Analyt Sci, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
climate change; electricity; environmental impacts; life cycle assessment; shale gas; NATURAL-GAS; METHANE; COAL;
D O I
10.1002/ente.201402097
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
This paper presents life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas used for electricity generation, in comparison with other fossil, nuclear and renewable options. Per kWh of electricity generated, shale gas has higher environmental impacts than the other options, except for coal. Thus, if it were to replace coal, most impacts would be reduced, including the global warming potential (GWP; by 2.3 times). However, if it were to compete with nuclear or some renewables most impacts would rise, with the GWP increasing by 5-123 times. Within a future UK electricity mix up to 2030, shale gas would make little difference to the environmental impacts of electricity generation, including the GWP, even for the most optimistic assumptions for its domestic production. This suggests that, in the medium term, shale gas cannot help towards meeting UK climate change targets and that certain renewables and nuclear power should be prioritized instead.
引用
收藏
页码:1012 / 1026
页数:15
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
Anirban R. A., 2014, J AIR WASTE MANAGE, P19
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, TECHNICALLY RECOVERA
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2019, EC V 36 DAT CUT OFF
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2013, BRIT GEOLOGICAL SURV
[5]  
[Anonymous], FRACKING PROTEST SCA
[6]  
[Anonymous], GABI MAN
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2011, CARB PLAN DEL OUR LO
[8]  
[Anonymous], UK EN BRIEF 2013
[9]  
Arrow Energy, 2011, ENV IMP STAT ARR LNG
[10]   Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Shale Gas, Natural Gas, Coal, and Petroleum [J].
Burnham, Andrew ;
Han, Jeongwoo ;
Clark, Corrie E. ;
Wang, Michael ;
Dunn, Jennifer B. ;
Palou-Rivera, Ignasi .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2012, 46 (02) :619-627