Seems the gas industry has a dark secret they don't want to share. That's too bad, it presents a serious problem for us.
http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/story/chasing-methane/
http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/story/chasing-methane/
Natural gas dirtier than coal?
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Methane is a greenhouse gas...but my understanding is that it lasts decades in the air, compared to co2 which lasts much longer (centuries?)
It would have been really nice had they bothered to include a summary article on their page instead of expecting everyone to sit through the videos.
Anyways, this isn't a new concern by any means. It's been under discussion for years, and part of general atmospheric studies (research not related to climate change) for quite a few decades. We know how atmospheric methane levels have changed in the industrial era, we know the production levels of fossil fuels that contribute to atmospheric methane (not just from natural gas production), and there's even been extensive study of how much of it is likely due to fossil fuels versus other sources like agriculture and landfills, which can in part be studied because fossil sources have no carbon-14 while non-fossil sources do. This is what the IPCC refers to as a top-down estimate.
There also have been bottom-up estimates based on attempting to determine what each category of human activity produces (like well leakage) on average, and multiplying those rates by how much of that activity we do.
The IPCC climate change assessments factor both of those analysis types into their work, and although the numbers have a fair amount of uncertainty, they do provide a good sense of the relative magnitudes. There's seems to be a fair amount of consistency in the estimates that fossil fuels account for about 1/3 of human-caused methane emissions (IPCC 5th Assessment Physical Sciences Report, Page 507)
And methane as a whole accounts for about 16% of the estimated human-caused global warming potential, while CO2 from fossil fuel use is about 65%. I don't have time right now to drill further down to try to split out the more complete natural gas versus coal warming potentials including both CO2 and methane, but it looks to me very much like natural gas does have a real potential as a transitional fossil source with lower warming potential than coal.
Which is basically what most others seem to be concluding, despite the noise from the media trying to cloud the public understanding of the issue:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...climate-trade-despite-leaks-researchers-argue
Also, it doesn't get discussed nearly as much, but the industry is interested in reducing gas leakage, because it's basically lost money. Unfortunately, during boom periods, the pressure to increase production is greater than the pressure to improve production efficiency. A slow and steady transition is better than one filled with boom and bust cycles.
Anyways, this isn't a new concern by any means. It's been under discussion for years, and part of general atmospheric studies (research not related to climate change) for quite a few decades. We know how atmospheric methane levels have changed in the industrial era, we know the production levels of fossil fuels that contribute to atmospheric methane (not just from natural gas production), and there's even been extensive study of how much of it is likely due to fossil fuels versus other sources like agriculture and landfills, which can in part be studied because fossil sources have no carbon-14 while non-fossil sources do. This is what the IPCC refers to as a top-down estimate.
There also have been bottom-up estimates based on attempting to determine what each category of human activity produces (like well leakage) on average, and multiplying those rates by how much of that activity we do.
The IPCC climate change assessments factor both of those analysis types into their work, and although the numbers have a fair amount of uncertainty, they do provide a good sense of the relative magnitudes. There's seems to be a fair amount of consistency in the estimates that fossil fuels account for about 1/3 of human-caused methane emissions (IPCC 5th Assessment Physical Sciences Report, Page 507)
And methane as a whole accounts for about 16% of the estimated human-caused global warming potential, while CO2 from fossil fuel use is about 65%. I don't have time right now to drill further down to try to split out the more complete natural gas versus coal warming potentials including both CO2 and methane, but it looks to me very much like natural gas does have a real potential as a transitional fossil source with lower warming potential than coal.
Which is basically what most others seem to be concluding, despite the noise from the media trying to cloud the public understanding of the issue:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...climate-trade-despite-leaks-researchers-argue
Also, it doesn't get discussed nearly as much, but the industry is interested in reducing gas leakage, because it's basically lost money. Unfortunately, during boom periods, the pressure to increase production is greater than the pressure to improve production efficiency. A slow and steady transition is better than one filled with boom and bust cycles.
It breaks down in the atmosphere over time with a halving rate of about a decade, but between the initially far higher warming potential and the fact that after breaking down it leaves us still with CO2, the overall warming potential is rated at 20-30 times as high as CO2 on a 100 year timescale.
Obviously, there needs to be regs on methane leakage, and existing ones are inadequate.
I agree with other posters that despite the scary number for 'worse than CO2', its gone in the same generation that released it, versus a curse upon centuries of future generations. It also doesn't lead to acidification.
While it is easy to bash the producers, there are also the major metro gas companies leaky distribution networks. There are huge NG leaks all over Boston chronically, that can be found by students driving around with methane stiffing equipment....but that is a 'too expensive to fix' infrastructure problem.
I agree with other posters that despite the scary number for 'worse than CO2', its gone in the same generation that released it, versus a curse upon centuries of future generations. It also doesn't lead to acidification.
While it is easy to bash the producers, there are also the major metro gas companies leaky distribution networks. There are huge NG leaks all over Boston chronically, that can be found by students driving around with methane stiffing equipment....but that is a 'too expensive to fix' infrastructure problem.
re boston
Good map here of the local leaks
http://www.mothersoutfront.org/we_re_working_to_fix_gas_leaks
Good map here of the local leaks
http://www.mothersoutfront.org/we_re_working_to_fix_gas_leaks
Yes this has been ongoing, though it appears to have become worse with extensive fracking in this decade. IIRC there was a report in the early 90's on this issue. Ironically Pruitt (current EPA head) fought this issue recently as Oklahoma attny. general. The NY Times reported on who was backing this fight. It came up during his confirmation proceedings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/...ecretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/...ecretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html
