Mike Soraghan reports on a new study on the environmental impact of exploiting shale gas reserves:

The lead author of the study, Robert Howarth, had previously stated the idea that shale gas production emits more greenhouse gases than coal production (ClimateWire, April 2, 2010). But now it is being published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
“Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years,” states a pre-publication copy (pdf) of the study, which is slated to be published in the journal Climatic Science and originally obtained by The Hill newspaper.
Howarth and his fellow Cornell professors, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, found the process of “hydraulic fracturing,” which is required to extract gas from shale, emits enough methane to make it dirtier than coal. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is more potent than carbon dioxide but does not last as long in the atmosphere.

The natural gas industry is displeased, and Soraghan’s article goes on to include an amusing tit-for-tat exchanges between natural gas advocates and the study’s authors. Rod Adams, a noted nuclear power enthusiast, has long since convinced me that shale gas is far from an energy panacea. But if it’s no better than coal in terms of its environmental impact, well, I’d say that’s the final nail in the coffin.

What this also means, however, is that nuclear power looks even better relative to the available alternatives. Given how the political winds have shifted post-Fukushima, that’s sobering news.