5 ms·

In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much worse

In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]) of all methods of electricity production. But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still looking at catastrophic global warming.[2][3] [0]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 [1]https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... [2]https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu... [3]https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...

jacquesm 8y ago
In a five year period Methane traps ~100 times more energy than the equivalent quantity of CO2, so not burning Methane because it escapes is far worse than burning it! http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/ http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-ca...
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  Which brings us around to the subject of the article ;)
- mrfusion 8y ago
  But it also doesn’t hang around for that long. Maybe better in the long term to release it than burn it?
  - wcoenen 8y ago
    For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway[1]. So it's better to break it down to CO2 immediately to avoid the stronger greenhouse effect of methane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_sinks_of_atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_si...
    - hcknwscommenter 8y ago
      Your link suggests your assertion "For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway" is just plain incorrect. In the atmosphere, methane becomes -CH3 (- used for dot because I don't know how to do that), the free radical eventually forms formaldehyde. Methanotropic soil bacteria can break down methane to CO2, but there is nothing to support your assertion that most of the ways methane breaks down [make] CO2.
      - mjw1007 8y ago
        The page at that link says: « The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. » So if the page is right, possibly not "most of the ways", but at least "most of the methane".
      - wcoenen 8y ago
        There are multiple reactions involved. The methane gets converted to formaldehyde, which gets converted into CO, which then gets converted into CO2.
- lancewiggs 8y ago
  The comparative effect between CO2 and methane varies as we vary the timeframe. One thing we do know - reducing methane will have an immediate impact, whereas reducing CO2 will have a lasting impact. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8
  - scarmig 8y ago
    Methane breaks down into CO2 and water, so we get the carbon dioxide regardless.
    - hcknwscommenter 8y ago
      There are many embedded assumptions in your statement that do not hold up to scrutiny. Methane "breaks down" to CO2 and water? This is difficult to parse. I do not think that methane generally breaks down to much of anything at standard temperature and pressure. Do you mean the combustion of methane produces CO2 and water? The latter is true, but OP's point is that this combustion produces A LOT less CO2 as compared to the equivalent (in BTUs) amount of coal.
      - arnoooooo 8y ago
        According to Wikipedia, in the troposphere and stratosphere, Methane reacts with hydroxyl radicals to give CO2 and H2O.
roenxi 8y ago
> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1] I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear. Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar. I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the radiation levels in the Fukushima exclusion area after, say, 10 years. People ignore sunlight because it is familiar, but from an engineering perspective it is quite hazardous. Without having any evidence on the subject whatsoever, I'd not be at all surprised if workers at an industrial solar plantation to be at higher risk of cancer than workers at a nuclear plant. I'd love to know how a solar plant working normally stacks up against a rare nuclear disaster by the numbers.
- batbomb 8y ago
  I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense is the word. But since a solar power plant is generating industrial levels of electricity by harvesting solar energy, it is clearly high energy in some practical sense. > workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. Each year many Australians (I'm from Australia, the number is >5,000) get diagnosed with skin cancer caused by sunlight. A double digit percentage of them die. Just because something is theoretically controllable doesn't mean that it is safe. 0 people died of radiation poisoning so far from the most recent nuclear disaster (Fukashima). Now, I am comparing apples and oranges, but it is entirely plausible that the cancer risks of a solar plant and a nuclear plant are comparable.
    - batbomb 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

In a five year period Methane traps ~100 times more energy than the equivalent quantity of CO2, so not burning Methane because it escapes is far worse than burning it! http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/ http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-ca...

24gttghh 8y ago
Which brings us around to the subject of the article ;)
mrfusion 8y ago
But it also doesn’t hang around for that long. Maybe better in the long term to release it than burn it?
- wcoenen 8y ago
  For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway[1]. So it's better to break it down to CO2 immediately to avoid the stronger greenhouse effect of methane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_sinks_of_atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_si...
  - hcknwscommenter 8y ago
    Your link suggests your assertion "For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway" is just plain incorrect. In the atmosphere, methane becomes -CH3 (- used for dot because I don't know how to do that), the free radical eventually forms formaldehyde. Methanotropic soil bacteria can break down methane to CO2, but there is nothing to support your assertion that most of the ways methane breaks down [make] CO2.
    - mjw1007 8y ago
      The page at that link says: « The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. » So if the page is right, possibly not "most of the ways", but at least "most of the methane".
    - wcoenen 8y ago
      There are multiple reactions involved. The methane gets converted to formaldehyde, which gets converted into CO, which then gets converted into CO2.
lancewiggs 8y ago
The comparative effect between CO2 and methane varies as we vary the timeframe. One thing we do know - reducing methane will have an immediate impact, whereas reducing CO2 will have a lasting impact. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8
- scarmig 8y ago
  Methane breaks down into CO2 and water, so we get the carbon dioxide regardless.
  - hcknwscommenter 8y ago
    There are many embedded assumptions in your statement that do not hold up to scrutiny. Methane "breaks down" to CO2 and water? This is difficult to parse. I do not think that methane generally breaks down to much of anything at standard temperature and pressure. Do you mean the combustion of methane produces CO2 and water? The latter is true, but OP's point is that this combustion produces A LOT less CO2 as compared to the equivalent (in BTUs) amount of coal.
    - arnoooooo 8y ago
      According to Wikipedia, in the troposphere and stratosphere, Methane reacts with hydroxyl radicals to give CO2 and H2O.

roenxi 8y ago

> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1] I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear. Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar. I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the radiation levels in the Fukushima exclusion area after, say, 10 years. People ignore sunlight because it is familiar, but from an engineering perspective it is quite hazardous. Without having any evidence on the subject whatsoever, I'd not be at all surprised if workers at an industrial solar plantation to be at higher risk of cancer than workers at a nuclear plant. I'd love to know how a solar plant working normally stacks up against a rare nuclear disaster by the numbers.

batbomb 8y ago
I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense is the word. But since a solar power plant is generating industrial levels of electricity by harvesting solar energy, it is clearly high energy in some practical sense. > workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. Each year many Australians (I'm from Australia, the number is >5,000) get diagnosed with skin cancer caused by sunlight. A double digit percentage of them die. Just because something is theoretically controllable doesn't mean that it is safe. 0 people died of radiation poisoning so far from the most recent nuclear disaster (Fukashima). Now, I am comparing apples and oranges, but it is entirely plausible that the cancer risks of a solar plant and a nuclear plant are comparable.
  - batbomb 8y ago