6 ms·

Yes, but the various methane extraction methods are leaky, hydraulic fracking worst of all. So while you do burn some of it to produce less harmful CO2, a lot a

Yes, but the various methane extraction methods are leaky, hydraulic fracking worst of all. So while you do burn some of it to produce less harmful CO2, a lot also escapes into the atmosphere. Another interesting factor to consider is the residency time of the different gases. Methane breaks down fairly quickly, while CO2 needs to be sequestered, which is currently done quite slowly via biological processes. Methane is extremely bad in the short term, but measured over a long period (100 years) does in fact trap less heat. However, we're not on a timeline where we can worry about 100 year effects. Our current warming trajectory will almost entirely destroy coral reefs in about 30 years, and estimates vary on the threshold for runaway effects (Methane calthrates, reduced primary production due to ocean acidification, etc) but the large majority of them are well below the 100 year threshold. Tl;DR: Natural gas might cause less warming over a long period, but it causes more in the near term, and we're screwed if we don't fix things in the near term. I bring up hydraulic fracking because it's the primary driver behind the renewed push for natural gas. The United States has suddenly become one of the most competitive producers of natural gas, so strong domestic forces are now lobbying for it. The one application where natural gas does have a decent advantage is base-load grid energy generation. Renewables like wind and solar are variable, and we need controlled inputs with rapid responses to help integrate them into the grid. Gas turbines are the most responsive fossil fuel systems by a wide margin, so they serve a decent purpose there. This should only be viewed as a stop-gap until we develop grid-scale storage through EV networks and such though.

ryao 10y ago
I would think that the producers are incentivized to reduce leaks to be able to sell more. Do you have any numbers on how leaky natural gas production is? What about for natural gas production from biomass? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas That being said, you can think natural gas is great without thinking about CO2 at all. Switching to natural gas would eliminate dependence on oil from the Middle East, which ought to be a good thing.
- jartelt 10y ago
  You are only incentivized to reduce leaks if the profit from selling the additional natural gas is larger than the cost of reducing the leaks. It is difficult to track down all the leaks because you cannot see a leak with your eyes (like you can see oil leaking from a pipeline). The key difference is that it is much harder to stop a gas from leaking than it is to stop a liquid like oil from leaking.
  - ryao 10y ago
    Isn't that why the gas has a smell added to it?
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Unless unprecedented carbon capture systems are discovered petrocarbon-based energy systems are not defensible in the medium to long term regardless of what flavor of market fuckery you try to bring to bear. The greenhouse effect isn't concerned with or impacted by geopolitics.
  - ryao 10y ago
    How do you propose vehicles operate without a carbon based fuel? Natural gas is cheaper at the low end for automotive transportation than electricity and it is the only feasible option for jet engines that does not involve oil. Let's not forget commercial shipping, which cannot operate on solar panels due to low surface area. I consider eliminating demand for oil to reduce funding of terrorist attacks to be a higher priority than eliminating carbon based transportation. If you do not, then there is always production of natural gas from biomass, which makes natural gas carbon neutral: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas For what it is worth, natural gas has a higher energy density per unit mass than gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Switching to it in transportation actually reduces energy requirements such that reductions in carbon dioxide output would be higher than the theoretical numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

ryao 10y ago

I would think that the producers are incentivized to reduce leaks to be able to sell more. Do you have any numbers on how leaky natural gas production is? What about for natural gas production from biomass? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas That being said, you can think natural gas is great without thinking about CO2 at all. Switching to natural gas would eliminate dependence on oil from the Middle East, which ought to be a good thing.

jartelt 10y ago
You are only incentivized to reduce leaks if the profit from selling the additional natural gas is larger than the cost of reducing the leaks. It is difficult to track down all the leaks because you cannot see a leak with your eyes (like you can see oil leaking from a pipeline). The key difference is that it is much harder to stop a gas from leaking than it is to stop a liquid like oil from leaking.
- ryao 10y ago
  Isn't that why the gas has a smell added to it?
knieveltech 10y ago
Unless unprecedented carbon capture systems are discovered petrocarbon-based energy systems are not defensible in the medium to long term regardless of what flavor of market fuckery you try to bring to bear. The greenhouse effect isn't concerned with or impacted by geopolitics.
- ryao 10y ago
  How do you propose vehicles operate without a carbon based fuel? Natural gas is cheaper at the low end for automotive transportation than electricity and it is the only feasible option for jet engines that does not involve oil. Let's not forget commercial shipping, which cannot operate on solar panels due to low surface area. I consider eliminating demand for oil to reduce funding of terrorist attacks to be a higher priority than eliminating carbon based transportation. If you do not, then there is always production of natural gas from biomass, which makes natural gas carbon neutral: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas For what it is worth, natural gas has a higher energy density per unit mass than gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Switching to it in transportation actually reduces energy requirements such that reductions in carbon dioxide output would be higher than the theoretical numbers: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11