The dirty side of clean natural gas

[begreen]

The horrific California situation continues unchecked. But what about methane leakage around the tens of thousands of other aging wells?
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-21/massive-gas-leak-los-angeles-shows-no-signs-ending

 

[blades]

And it's been going on a long time this didn't just start yesterday but until something major happens and lives are lost it will be ignored or at least back peddled - just like the Fracking controvesy , or Flint Mich. water woes

 

[iamlucky13]

This is not a new topic. Researchers have been accounting for estimated methane releases, both natural and those related to human activity in their climate forecasts for years. Methane does have somewhere in the ballpark of 25 times the estimated 100 year warming potential as CO2, but we emit so much more CO2 that the latter remains the most significant concern by a large margin.

Here's a handy chart based on IPCC research, indicating 16% warming contribution from methane vs. 76% from CO2, on global basis.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Within the methane category alone, the energy sector is reported to account for about 29%, at least within the US:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

The result is the CO2-equivalent warming potential of natural gas use is a bit higher than would be estimated if you looked at only CO2 emissions...I think by about 5-10%. Of course, we already know it's not a carbon neutral fuel. The purported environmental benefit is as a stop gap to displace coal. Since burning coal releases about 75% more CO2 than natural gas for the same amount of energy, it seems methane leaks reduce moderately, but do not eliminate the expected advantage of natural gas from a climate change perspective. Keep in mind also that mining coal also releases methane trapped in the coal beds, so a full comparison would need to factor that in, too.

On the plus side, even though our consumption of natural gas has been increasing, emissions of natural gas in the US has been decreasing as energy companies put more effort into stopping easy money from leaking into the air from bad wells, poor piping, and most importantly, oil wells that aren't equipped to capture the gas that usually accompanies oil.

As far as the California storage field leak: it's a near term health and safety concern for LA, not a major overall contributor to climate change. The entire storage capacity of that facility amounts to slightly less than 1% of a single year's human-caused methane emissions.

 

[maple1]

CO2 is plant food. Healthy plant life is a good thing.

That's a somewhat skewing factor that I don't see gets much mention in the numbers games.

 

[DougA]

I'm no expert but I think the problem with CO2 is the vast amount of it and the lessening amount of plant life to use it.

 

[semipro]

CO2 is plant food. Healthy plant life is a good thing.
That's a somewhat skewing factor that I don't see gets much mention in the numbers games.

I get your point but too much of a good thing....
Phosphorus is also plant food but too much of it leads to overgrowth of algae in waterways that creates water quality issues.

 

[iamlucky13]

Plants don't have any trouble getting enough CO2 at the historical 280 ppm, much less the current ~360 ppm.

 

[woodgeek]

I've heard the reverse....that under strong sun, mild temps and adequate water, CO2 collection is a limiting factor on photosynthesis. Higher CO2 will stimulate faster growth, which is a good, and it IS discussed in global warming circles.

Its just not a big enough effect to outweigh all the other factors, or make to problem 'go away' anytime soon.

 

[semipro]

faster growth, which is a good,

I question this assertion though I admit freely that those in global warming circles certainly know more than I on the subject.
As in the example I mentioned above with algal blooms; the growth of the algae is generally not a problem until it dies off when its decay then depletes oxygen levels in the water. This is a relatively well understood, straight forward, and yes, localized process (in comparison to global CO2).
Still, IMO the impacts of atmospheric CO2 levels are much harder to predict - a challenge made much tougher when ocean CO2 levels are considered. Yes, we have historical records such as polar ice and fossils that give us info on the past impacts of CO2 levels but in a different context; a world without human influence.
I feel the complexities of the global climate are still well beyond human understanding and ultimately its our hubris on such matters that will be our downfall.

 

[woodgeek]

I'm not advocating for AGW or carbon pollution, but I believe that many laboratory and greenhouse studies have found that growth rates and crop yields increase with modest increases to CO2. It seems likely that the total productivity of the biosphere (rate of carbon fixation) is increasing due to human activity...intensive agriculture and irrigation, biomass harvest, artificial fertilizers added to the system in massive amounts, and yes, additional CO2.

Aside from the moral dimension created by humans, AGW is a **physical process** devoid of judgements of human fairness or needs.

Some aspects of it will inevitably lead to windfalls and positives for some lucky (or foresighted) individuals. Such as solar panel salesmen, RE lobbyists and investors, Elon Musk, Canadian farmers with quality topsoil and ample supplies of water, etc.

 

[billb3]

CO2 is plant food. Healthy plant life is a good thing.

That's a somewhat skewing factor that I don't see gets much mention in the numbers games.

unfortunately cutting down forests at record pace and 7 billion two legged heaters is tilting the balance