8 ms·

... and it better stays there. Building up more capacity to extract fossil fuels is not what we should be doing right now.

FreeFull 8y ago
It might still be better to extract it and burn it than to let it off-gas into the atmosphere on its own when the ice melts. Methane is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
doombolt 8y ago
Oil and gas are the only reliable Russian exports. Economic pressure on Russia leads to increase of importance of oil and gas sector as other sectors plunge. This leads to more capacity, more offering. Which leads to price correction, even more offering as prices fall and have to be made for. Which in total leads to massive use of cheap gas. If there was someone committed to decrease in fossil fuel usage they will be making sure that Russia turns into Norway economically and politically. Meaning much fewer extraction of much more expensive fuels and more effort to not knock the ecology in the process.
- ben_w 8y ago
  What happens when those exports stop being reliable, if and when renewables get cheap enough that electrolysing hydrogen from water is still cheaper than mining methane from Siberia despite the inefficiency of the former?
  - doombolt 8y ago
    Nobody knows for sure. Maybe a Syria-style (but ten times stronger) migration from Russia westwards? It is assumed that Syrian crisis started happening when its Oil exports dipped in red, as in existing Syrian economy would consume more Oil than they were capable to extract. Worsening climate did not help of course.
  - trhway 8y ago
    >What happens when those exports stop being reliable The last time it happened - mid 198x - the USSR collapsed. The oil price drop in 2014-2016 delivered a significant jolt to Russia causing economical crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014%E2%80%932017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014.... Among other effects, that affected new weapons systems and armed forces modernization, etc. It also lead to very unpopular pension (social security) eligibility age increase. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014%E2%80%932017)#Demographic_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014... : "According to New World Wealth study, over 2,000 millionaires emigrated from Russia."
- credit_guy 8y ago
  > Oil and gas are the only reliable Russian exports. Just to corroborate this, I found this interesting website [1]. "The top exports of Russia are Crude Petroleum ($75.7B), Refined Petroleum ($43.1B), Petroleum Gas ($16B), Coal Briquettes ($10.4B) and Raw Aluminium ($6.08B)" [1] https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/ https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/
  - doombolt 8y ago
    It is also an eye-opener that food is so cheap these days you can make more from selling Diamonds mined at 2-3 locations than from selling Wheat grown all over the map.
makomk 8y ago
In practice, the shift to renewable electricity and the focus on reducing emissions means more demand for natural gas, since gas generators produce less pollution than coal and are better at responding to changes in demand caused by variation in the renewable energy supply.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  Is that really practical though? I mean, it makes sense financially and in terms of how we usually do transition, but we’re frankly running out of time, and maybe we need to be radical rather than practical. I’m old, I’ve seen how we’ve ignored the warnings for the past 30 years. Worse yet, if you ask people on when sollutuons can be ready, they say 10-20 years, and we only have one decade left to stop our own destruction.
  - thrower123 8y ago
    The radicals fucked us all over by agitating against nuke power in the 70s. Free love and climate change, man.
    - throwaway12iii 8y ago
      The ocean is filled with nuclear waste world wide from one plant leaking. You can't eat food grown in huge areas of Europe. The last generation plants were a military money hack. The plants that got funded interestingly were good at producing materials used for bombs. Not good designs that are financially viable without military money. Or even designs that are safe. They are too expensive to close down properly. That's why not one has been closed down in the USA. That's not a safe design. If the military jerks didn't hijack things so the power plants were designed wrong we would probably have had better designs made and more research going into the right directions. Instead we have a sea of toxic waste and bullshit plants to clean up. Blaming environmentalists is fucking stupid. What's your counter argument? Something like... War is peace, hate is love, ignorance is strength? Bullshit.
      - 8y ago
nonbel 8y ago
You've got it wrong if you are worried about the greenhouse effect. If humans don't extract and burn the gas, the gas will be released as-is into the atmosphere by beavers thawing out the permafrost.[1] Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products.[2] [1] https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/07/11/beavers-are-moving-into-the-arctic-you-can-see-it-from-space/ https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/07/11/beavers-are-moving-i... [2] "Natural gas is thus a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide due to the greater global-warming potential of methane" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Natural_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Natural_gas
- lisper 8y ago
  > Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products But it naturally decomposes into CO2 in a few years once in the atmosphere, so the net effect is more or less the same. The GP is right: it would be much better if the methane just stays where it is.
  - strommen 8y ago
    The net effect is not even close to the same; it's far worse. Methane is ~36x more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year timespan. This includes the eventual decay to CO2.
    - lisper 8y ago
      Source? Here's what I have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane "Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere..." Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        >"Source?" I just searched "methane 36x more potent", here is a random result: "CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1... Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... >"Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is." So, you are in favor of the gas being released as methane then? Your reasoning is not clear. EDIT: To make it clear: Humans burning this gas for fuel leads to less greenhouse effect than would otherwise occur.

FreeFull 8y ago

It might still be better to extract it and burn it than to let it off-gas into the atmosphere on its own when the ice melts. Methane is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

doombolt 8y ago

Oil and gas are the only reliable Russian exports. Economic pressure on Russia leads to increase of importance of oil and gas sector as other sectors plunge. This leads to more capacity, more offering. Which leads to price correction, even more offering as prices fall and have to be made for. Which in total leads to massive use of cheap gas. If there was someone committed to decrease in fossil fuel usage they will be making sure that Russia turns into Norway economically and politically. Meaning much fewer extraction of much more expensive fuels and more effort to not knock the ecology in the process.

ben_w 8y ago
What happens when those exports stop being reliable, if and when renewables get cheap enough that electrolysing hydrogen from water is still cheaper than mining methane from Siberia despite the inefficiency of the former?
- doombolt 8y ago
  Nobody knows for sure. Maybe a Syria-style (but ten times stronger) migration from Russia westwards? It is assumed that Syrian crisis started happening when its Oil exports dipped in red, as in existing Syrian economy would consume more Oil than they were capable to extract. Worsening climate did not help of course.
- trhway 8y ago
  >What happens when those exports stop being reliable The last time it happened - mid 198x - the USSR collapsed. The oil price drop in 2014-2016 delivered a significant jolt to Russia causing economical crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014%E2%80%932017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014.... Among other effects, that affected new weapons systems and armed forces modernization, etc. It also lead to very unpopular pension (social security) eligibility age increase. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014%E2%80%932017)#Demographic_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014... : "According to New World Wealth study, over 2,000 millionaires emigrated from Russia."
credit_guy 8y ago
> Oil and gas are the only reliable Russian exports. Just to corroborate this, I found this interesting website [1]. "The top exports of Russia are Crude Petroleum ($75.7B), Refined Petroleum ($43.1B), Petroleum Gas ($16B), Coal Briquettes ($10.4B) and Raw Aluminium ($6.08B)" [1] https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/ https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/
- doombolt 8y ago
  It is also an eye-opener that food is so cheap these days you can make more from selling Diamonds mined at 2-3 locations than from selling Wheat grown all over the map.

makomk 8y ago

In practice, the shift to renewable electricity and the focus on reducing emissions means more demand for natural gas, since gas generators produce less pollution than coal and are better at responding to changes in demand caused by variation in the renewable energy supply.

eksemplar 8y ago
Is that really practical though? I mean, it makes sense financially and in terms of how we usually do transition, but we’re frankly running out of time, and maybe we need to be radical rather than practical. I’m old, I’ve seen how we’ve ignored the warnings for the past 30 years. Worse yet, if you ask people on when sollutuons can be ready, they say 10-20 years, and we only have one decade left to stop our own destruction.
- thrower123 8y ago
  The radicals fucked us all over by agitating against nuke power in the 70s. Free love and climate change, man.
  - throwaway12iii 8y ago
    The ocean is filled with nuclear waste world wide from one plant leaking. You can't eat food grown in huge areas of Europe. The last generation plants were a military money hack. The plants that got funded interestingly were good at producing materials used for bombs. Not good designs that are financially viable without military money. Or even designs that are safe. They are too expensive to close down properly. That's why not one has been closed down in the USA. That's not a safe design. If the military jerks didn't hijack things so the power plants were designed wrong we would probably have had better designs made and more research going into the right directions. Instead we have a sea of toxic waste and bullshit plants to clean up. Blaming environmentalists is fucking stupid. What's your counter argument? Something like... War is peace, hate is love, ignorance is strength? Bullshit.
    - 8y ago

nonbel 8y ago

You've got it wrong if you are worried about the greenhouse effect. If humans don't extract and burn the gas, the gas will be released as-is into the atmosphere by beavers thawing out the permafrost.[1] Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products.[2] [1] https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/07/11/beavers-are-moving-into-the-arctic-you-can-see-it-from-space/ https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/07/11/beavers-are-moving-i... [2] "Natural gas is thus a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide due to the greater global-warming potential of methane" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Natural_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Natural_gas

lisper 8y ago
> Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products But it naturally decomposes into CO2 in a few years once in the atmosphere, so the net effect is more or less the same. The GP is right: it would be much better if the methane just stays where it is.
- strommen 8y ago
  The net effect is not even close to the same; it's far worse. Methane is ~36x more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year timespan. This includes the eventual decay to CO2.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Source? Here's what I have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane "Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere..." Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"Source?" I just searched "methane 36x more potent", here is a random result: "CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1... Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... >"Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is." So, you are in favor of the gas being released as methane then? Your reasoning is not clear. EDIT: To make it clear: Humans burning this gas for fuel leads to less greenhouse effect than would otherwise occur.