4 ms·

On the plus side, the CO2 from burning natural gas is less than coal and it doesn't emit mercury or the other particulates and doesn't have a waste issue like c

by opo 10y ago

On the plus side, the CO2 from burning natural gas is less than coal and it doesn't emit mercury or the other particulates and doesn't have a waste issue like coal does. Unfortunately for those who care about climate change, (and if you don't, you should) there are inevitable methane releases from fracking and from distribution of natural gas and those are now known to be much worse than previously thought: >...Back in August, a NOAA-led study measured a stunning 6% to 12% methane leakage over one of the country’s largest gas fields — which would gut the climate benefits of switching from coal to gas. We’ve known for a long time that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), which is released when any hydrocarbon, like natural gas, is burned. But the IPCC’s latest report, released Monday (big PDF here), reports that methane is 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale, so its global-warming potential (GWP) is 34. That is a nearly 40% increase from the IPCC’s previous estimate of 25. ...The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon. Finally, it bears repeating that natural gas from even the best fracked wells is still a climate-destroying fossil fuel. If we are to avoid catastrophic warming, our natural gas consumption has to peak sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, according to studies by both the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists. https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-warns-methane-traps-much-more-heat-than-we-thought-9c2badf392df https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-wa... As we use more and more natural gas, we can expect more and more methane disasters like the leak from Aliso Canyon in CA which was the largest leak in US history. This released over 100,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere and required 11,000 residents to be evacuated. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35659947 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35659947

Retric 10y ago
100,000 tons of methane with a half life of less than 10 years. The math is complex and 1 ton of methane becomes more than one ton of CO2, but the actual long term impact is fairly minimal vs the savings from not using Coal. Remember that's ~100,000 tons / ~10,000,000,000 tons = 1/100,000 so yea methane is bad, but in this context it's 0.001% so it's still a rounding error even if it's 100 times that bad. Anyway, I agree it's not without costs. But, if we got to the point where peaking power from gas makes up ~10% of total electricity supply and the rest of that is renewable power then we will have made massive progress. In other words don't let perfection stand in the way of progress.
- opo 10y ago
  >100,000 tons of methane with a half life of less than 10 years. The math is complex and 1 ton of methane becomes more than one ton of CO2, You are downplaying the impact of methane. As I quoted in the last post, the IPCC estimate is that over 100 years a given amount of methane is 34 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas compared to CO2. Over a 20 year period (which is probably more relevant considering where we are in climate change) methane is 86 times more potent. >...but the actual long term impact is fairly minimal vs the savings from not using Coal. That's the problem - there is enough methane being released by our new reliance on natural gas there is concern that we may be having just as much of an impact on climate change as if we went and burned coal. >...Remember that's ~100,000 tons / ~10,000,000,000 tons = 1/100,000 so yea methane is bad, but in this context it's 0.001% so it's still a rounding error even if it's 100 times that bad. The problem is that EVERY natural gas well, storage facility and pipeline leaks methane. This was just the largest one. As I quoted in the last post, "...Back in August, a NOAA-led study measured a stunning 6% to 12% methane leakage over one of the country’s largest gas fields — which would gut the climate benefits of switching from coal to gas." >... But, if we got to the point where peaking power from gas makes up ~10% of total electricity supply and the rest of that is renewable power then we will have made massive progress. Yea no kidding - 90% power from intermittent sources would be pretty remarkable. The problem is that 90% power from intermittent sources won't be possible unless there are major advances in grid storage technologies. In terms of having to use natural gas, nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, so there is no reason this can't be done elsewhere. Minimizing our use of natural gas when when you consider the climate changing negative externalities of natural gas, would be a good thing.
  - Retric 10y ago
    That's just lying with numbers. 86 / 5 = 17.5 so average from year 20 to year 100 is 34 - 17.5 = 16.5x. And again the majority of that 16.5 is over years 20-40. Further, because of this decay increases in release rate don't stack at 86x year over year. You get a magnified increase in the first year and a smaller net increase every year after that until your down to the carbon content of methane. Under 10% total gen from peaking power is viable with over production of wind and solar and zero grid storage. It's not going to be 10% 24/7 but 0 most of the day, regular generation at part of the day, and rare spikes up to 50%. You can drop that under 5% with moderate grid storage of around 1h average demand, but you start needing vastly more storage the lower you want to take that number.

by opo 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

100,000 tons of methane with a half life of less than 10 years. The math is complex and 1 ton of methane becomes more than one ton of CO2, but the actual long term impact is fairly minimal vs the savings from not using Coal. Remember that's ~100,000 tons / ~10,000,000,000 tons = 1/100,000 so yea methane is bad, but in this context it's 0.001% so it's still a rounding error even if it's 100 times that bad. Anyway, I agree it's not without costs. But, if we got to the point where peaking power from gas makes up ~10% of total electricity supply and the rest of that is renewable power then we will have made massive progress. In other words don't let perfection stand in the way of progress.

opo 10y ago
>100,000 tons of methane with a half life of less than 10 years. The math is complex and 1 ton of methane becomes more than one ton of CO2, You are downplaying the impact of methane. As I quoted in the last post, the IPCC estimate is that over 100 years a given amount of methane is 34 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas compared to CO2. Over a 20 year period (which is probably more relevant considering where we are in climate change) methane is 86 times more potent. >...but the actual long term impact is fairly minimal vs the savings from not using Coal. That's the problem - there is enough methane being released by our new reliance on natural gas there is concern that we may be having just as much of an impact on climate change as if we went and burned coal. >...Remember that's ~100,000 tons / ~10,000,000,000 tons = 1/100,000 so yea methane is bad, but in this context it's 0.001% so it's still a rounding error even if it's 100 times that bad. The problem is that EVERY natural gas well, storage facility and pipeline leaks methane. This was just the largest one. As I quoted in the last post, "...Back in August, a NOAA-led study measured a stunning 6% to 12% methane leakage over one of the country’s largest gas fields — which would gut the climate benefits of switching from coal to gas." >... But, if we got to the point where peaking power from gas makes up ~10% of total electricity supply and the rest of that is renewable power then we will have made massive progress. Yea no kidding - 90% power from intermittent sources would be pretty remarkable. The problem is that 90% power from intermittent sources won't be possible unless there are major advances in grid storage technologies. In terms of having to use natural gas, nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, so there is no reason this can't be done elsewhere. Minimizing our use of natural gas when when you consider the climate changing negative externalities of natural gas, would be a good thing.
- Retric 10y ago
  That's just lying with numbers. 86 / 5 = 17.5 so average from year 20 to year 100 is 34 - 17.5 = 16.5x. And again the majority of that 16.5 is over years 20-40. Further, because of this decay increases in release rate don't stack at 86x year over year. You get a magnified increase in the first year and a smaller net increase every year after that until your down to the carbon content of methane. Under 10% total gen from peaking power is viable with over production of wind and solar and zero grid storage. It's not going to be 10% 24/7 but 0 most of the day, regular generation at part of the day, and rare spikes up to 50%. You can drop that under 5% with moderate grid storage of around 1h average demand, but you start needing vastly more storage the lower you want to take that number.