4 ms·
"For an energy realist, I recommend checking out Vaclav Smil, who has long been predicting 21st century as the century of natural gas" My very recent reading o
by rsync 8y ago
"For an energy realist, I recommend checking out Vaclav Smil, who has long been predicting 21st century as the century of natural gas"
My very recent reading on this topic has lead me to believe that while burning natural gas is quite an improvement in carbon emissions vs. burning coal or oil, unburned natural gas traps quite a bit more heat than carbon dioxide does.
It was even suggested that pipeline leaks, manufacturing leaks and (other misc. steps in the lifecycle) leaks make natural gas a wash in terms of climate change.
I hope this is not the case and I wonder if anyone here can comment further ?
- rosser 8y ago"Natural Gas" is primarily methane. In terms of Greenhouse effects, we would do vastly better to "burn off" any leaks than let them leak.
- rsync 8y agoYes, that's the point of the commentary that I read - there are unintentional leaks in the production, transport and use of natural gas that are much larger than one might assume. Pipelines, for instance, are quite "leaky". These leaks are unintentional and difficult to find/monitor, so they are not burned off ...
- WhompingWindows 8y agoI believe methane is around 25 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2 (have seen different figures around 25ish). There is a much shorter half-life on that methane, it degrades in the atmosphere much more quickly (<100 vs ~1000 years) than the very stable CO2 molecule. However we have to think of positive feedback loops. The methane will heat us much sooner, which will allow more ice melt, more methane emissions from the permafrost in northern climates, and accelerating the heating we've already seen in polar regions.