Even warmists at the MIT understand the importance of shale gas. These are some of the conclusions in a fresh paper:
Under one scenario, they found that gas prices would rise by about five times their current levels by 2050 without shale gas. Electricity prices would also grow. With shale gas included in the mix, gas prices would only double. The shale input also reduces electricity price growth by 5 percent in 2030 and 10 percent in 2045, compared to a scenario without shale gas.
But the problem for the greenie scientists lies in this:
The paper notes that, without new regulatory restrains, there is little interest in developing technologies such as carbon capture and storage, or CCS, and that "the shale gas reduces interest even further."
"The gas 'revolution' has important implications for the direction and intensity of national efforts to develop and deploy low-emission technologies, like CCS for coal and gas," the MIT paper said.
Under strict limits on greenhouse gases, renewable sources such as wind are needed, but shale gas development delays such sources by up to two decades, the study said. "While taking advantage of this [shale gas] gift in the short term, treating gas as a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future, it is crucial not to allow the greater ease of the near-term task to erode efforts to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge."
Read the entire article here
However, the assumption that shale gas is some kind of a "bridge to a low-carbon future" is totally wrong . Shale gas is no bridge, but a quality highway to the foreseeable energy future. And CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) for coal and gas is a useless technology not worth wasting government (= taxpayers´) money on.