17 ms·

This is largely because we are replacing coal plants with fracked natural gas plants, which we are doing because fracked gas is cheap and plentiful. Fracked ga

This is largely because we are replacing coal plants with fracked natural gas plants, which we are doing because fracked gas is cheap and plentiful. Fracked gas is way better from an air pollution point of view and a little better from a direct carbon emission point of view. But when you consider the methane leaks from wellheads and pipelines and facilities it is roughly as bad as coal for climate. This is overall not a good story for climate as we lock in gas plants for decades. Renewables and nuclear deployments did not factor in much to this decrease.

misiti3780 7y ago
Yep, in 2017 the US became the largest exporter of crude oil, surpassing Saudi Arabia because of fracking. American natural gas production, which had been essentially flat since the mid-1970s, jumped by nearly 43 percent between 2007 and 2017.
dcolkitt 7y ago
> But when you consider the methane leaks from wellheads and pipelines and facilities it is roughly as bad as coal for climate. This makes intuitive sense. But do you have a source for how that calculation was determined. My understanding is that the impact of methane viz-a-viz carbon is highly sensitive to the time frame that you're considering. Methane is highly potent in terms of warning but quickly breaks down in the atmosphere.
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Quickly is a relative term. Methane won't exist for millennia like CO2, but it will contribute to positive feedback loops in the coming decades in the climate that lead to further warming. Ideally, gas should be deployed as a transitional and backup energy source; let's use it to kill coal, then let's use it as flexible generation once renewables are much higher %. This is assuming batteries and other storage don't ramp quickly enough.
uncoder0 7y ago
The upside of methane is that it's short lived in the atmosphere with a half life in the atmosphere of ~7 years. At the end of the day we do need more nuclear it's the best solution and the newest generation of reactors can consume the 'waste' from our older generation plants, it's a win/win.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Nuclear guy here. Burning old plant's waste is extraordinarily expensive and we need to reduce nuclear costs overall, so I don't think waste burning is a good option at the moment. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic repositories like the one under construction at Onkalo in Finland are the solution for nuclear waste. Let's establish long-term disposal like this to put the concern to bed and then worry about breeding and reprocessing if and when it becomes necessary in 60+ years. There is no shortage of nuclear fuel in sight.
lacker 7y ago
Natural gas is not at all "roughly as bad as coal for climate". There is a lot of research indicating this, so I will just point to one article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-really-better-coal-180949739/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-re... Natural gas isn't the ultimate solution, of course, but it's a mistake to treat it the same as coal.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  > If too much methane leaks during production, though, the benefits will be lost Right in the sub title. Are you willing to bet that methane leaks are poorly tracked or an "honor system"? I am.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Having lived in coal mining country, and visited a coal mine, I'm not. Methane and other gasses that leak during coal mining are carefully monitored and tracked because they're a hazard not only to the safety of the miners, but to the entire operation. An explosion can kill dozens, destroy the mine, and leave it burning for decades. But I will state that I'm an outsider in this field, and I suspect you are, too. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can comment more authoritatively.
    - pyrale 7y ago
      This quote applies to fracking operations.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      It's closely tracked when it's something that could seriously impact the ability of the operation to continue producing revenue. But what about when it's simply an environmental externality? Some contaminated water supplies can be conveniently swept under the rug, who's going to know and if they do how are they going to prove that you did it? Much better not to keep records on that type of thing and look the other way.
    - 7y ago
Retric 7y ago
Unlike CO2 Methane has a half life of ~7 years in the atmosphere, thus front loading warming before breaking down into CO2 and water. So, in terms of climate impact in 2040+, natural gas burned today is significantly better than coal.
- kingkawn 7y ago
  If it breaks down into CO2 after the 7 years doesn’t that mean it continues to be a climate changing element?
  - Retric 7y ago
    It’s a question of scale. Methane is useful fuel, so leaks are an exception rather than the most common result. Spilled gasoline when fueling your car also results in atmospheric CO2, but you produce vastly more CO2 from what ends up in your tank.
    - breakyerself 7y ago
      There is plenty of evidence that leakyness is a common feature of natural gas infrastructure. The Methane being leaked is 86x more potent than co2 over 20 years and 34x more potent over 100 years. At 1% leakage todays natural gas emissions don't gain a climate advantage over coal until around 2100. At 2% leakage todays natural gas emissions are still significantly worse than coal in 2100. https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/global-spike-in-atmospheric-methane-linked-to-fracking-322843 https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/glo... http://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918 http://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-le... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
      - frank2 7y ago
        Interesting. Oil companies frack to get petroleum, and are OK with burning the natural gas at the well head. I get the impression that a big reason they choose to capture the natural gas instead is criticism of just burning it by environmentalists, but maybe it is more environmentally friendly to just burn it in the absence of the political will to ban fracking. (I am assuming that burning at the well head is an effective way to reduce the amount of unburnt gas released.)
tomatotomato37 7y ago
How did I know the first comment was going to be some variation of "Ignore the data because the US is doing bad things and making the problem worse." Not everything is bad data or a conspiracy, sometimes it actually is progress, so stop whinging and take the fucking win for once.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  When there's a massive profit motive for someone to lie to you about something, you approach it as if it were a lie. If it's a win I'll take it as a win, but I'm going to scrutinize it in the extreme before I go about taking anything that amounts to good PR for a corporate entity's political aims for granted.
  - tomatotomato37 7y ago
    The actual data comes from an independent research group which is also publishing articles like this[0] and this[1], so I think it's safe to say the true researchers aren't just acting as corporate mouthpieces. [0] https://rhg.com/research/an-eu-green-new-deal-requires-a-far-higher-price-on-carbon/ https://rhg.com/research/an-eu-green-new-deal-requires-a-far... [1]https://rhg.com/research/hotter-poorer-and-more-unequal/ https://rhg.com/research/hotter-poorer-and-more-unequal/
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  I'm just pointing out that we're switching from a crazy-high carbon source to a super-high carbon source. This isn't a climate solution. It's not a win. It's a distraction. We need to switch to low-carbon sources like solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and wind. Not fracked gas. Fracked gas is a high-carbon climate-change-causing fuel and needs to be treated as one.
  - oh-4-fucks-sake 7y ago
    Agree like 80% here. I'd add that: Hydro: when, especially when used on rivers near coasts with migrating fish--isn't the panacea it was historically thought to be--it ruins the flow of nutrient-rich silt that feeds carbon-capturing flora and cuts off nutrients to small fish which hurts big fish and apex predators. Tidal: though great in theory--can do a lot of harm when installed naively on the coast in the middle of sensitive ecosystems--though I think some of the experimental deeper, further-offshore installations might mitigate that. Nuclear: I think we biffed this one for decades--and though the technology is there to make it work. There sadly just isn't enough political and public support anymore. Not to mention to scale up 100s of billions or trillions of dollars of nuclear plants could easily take 20-30 years--time that I don't think we have. Geo: Works great but only in specific regions. That leaves solar and wind as the biggest options that we can scale up quickly and can likely get political and public support for. N. Europe is killing it with its MASSIVE offshore wind installations and thank goodness solar continues to fall in price. In the US, anyway, I think the right liberal leadership could budget big for this and tackle a big chunk of the problem in 10 years. But, King Cheeto Fucktard is going to have to be out before that will happen meaningfully with Federal mondy. C'est la vie...
beat 7y ago
Renewables are definitely a factor at this point, and a growing one. Nuclear is not... new nuclear production is basically at a standstill, because it's far too expensive. Cost is what's killing coal, and it's killing traditional nuclear as well.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Operating nuclear plants are shutting down early in some places because electricity revenue has gone down because cheap fracked natural gas has brought prices down. Trading perfectly-fine NPPs for fracked gas plants at this time in our climate history for 1 cent/kWh is a travesty.
  - beat 7y ago
    And how would you prevent this? The flip side of nuclear's stability at high loads over long term is that the economics are all built around running at high load. If they lose major customers to cheaper competition, they can no longer operate profitably.
    - philipkglass 7y ago
      Give nuclear plants subsidies in the form of zero-emission credits like New York and Illinois did: https://statepowerproject.org/illinois/ https://statepowerproject.org/illinois/ https://statepowerproject.org/new-york/ https://statepowerproject.org/new-york/ That way low-cost natural gas generation can still replace coal fired generators but won't drive premature nuclear retirements.
    - lkbm 7y ago
      By internalizing the cost of pollution, specifically, a carbon tax (though also a methane tax and a mercury tax). I don't know if nuclear plants are covering the costs of storing spent fuel, but they should, and coal and natural gas plants should have to pay for the crap they release into the air. Markets will only allocate resources appropriately if you internalize externalities. I can't think of a case where doing so is the wrong decision.
imtringued 7y ago
You can't lock in gas plants because they are less capital intensive, require less staff, they can throttle based on demand and finally the fuel costs are higher than renewables so it always makes sense to throttle them down when renewables are available instead of clogging the grid like coal plants. They are one key part of the needed energy storage mix.
tectonic 7y ago
A really good review of methane and climate change: https://www.darrinqualman.com/methane/ https://www.darrinqualman.com/methane/
mirimir 7y ago
I suspect that these estimates don't include methane leaks.
Zenst 7y ago
Be interesting to see water quality (or water emissions if you like) for the same period. Mindful that fracking has been associated with water quality in some areas.
merpnderp 7y ago
I’m not sure I believe this. My state over the last 20 years went from 70% coal 30% natgas to 25% coal, 25% wind, 50% natgas. We’re fricking killing it when it comes to fighting air pollution. Only reason other states don’t follow suit is they politically can’t embrace natgas like we can, and without gas turbines, you can’t expand wind as easily.
mac01021 7y ago
Are those methane leaks factored into the determination that US Emissions have fallen 2.1%?
api 7y ago
Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere than CO2. Also unlike CO2 emissions there is an economic incentive to fix methane leaks: you're leaking product!
arbuge 7y ago
> But when you consider the methane leaks from wellheads and pipelines and facilities it is roughly as bad as coal for climate. This is a solvable problem which can and should be addressed by appropriate regulation. The real problem is that the current administration seems intent on not doing so: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/epa-methane-greenhouse-gas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/epa-methane-green...
godelski 7y ago
> a little better from a direct carbon emission point of view. Usually I'm on your side about these things, but I was surprised by your comment. Here's the IPCC numbers [0]. Natural gas has about half the emissions that coal does. With CCS it almost gets to the levels of renewables and nuclear. I'm not saying this should be a long term solution or even endorsing this solution. But natural gas is definitely more than a little better than coal in terms of climate. > This is overall not a good story for climate as we lock in gas plants for decades. I do agree with this point, mostly. We can still push for CCS additions to already operating plants. I know you know better than most that renewables don't work as effectively everywhere and batteries are there for long term solutions (though clearly we're building gas where we don't have to and that IS a big problem). I also know you're an expert when it comes to understanding nuclear. As for energy, we need more of it. If we can't build new renewables or nuclear, I'll take a new gas plant over a new coal plant any day. I do think everyone here is in agreement that we'd rather have renewables though (and several also want nuclear). [0] https://i.imgur.com/wkvjleP.png https://i.imgur.com/wkvjleP.png
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stjohnswarts 7y ago
It's not just a "little better" on CO2 emissions, it emits half the amount of CO2 that coal does per unit energy. That's pretty significant.
- breakyerself 7y ago
  You have to account for methane leakage too though.
DenisM 7y ago
Methane decomposes in the atmosphere [1]. CO2 is forever. Mechanism Methane removal (Mt) Tropospheric oxidation 506 Stratospheric oxidation 40 Soil uptake 30 Total 576 Emissions 598 [1] https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk...
- jefftk 7y ago
  Methane decomposes in the atmosphere... into CO2.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Yes but the point is converting coal plants to burn methane - even if fracking results in some leaked methane - is still a significant net gain.
hanniabu 7y ago
> Fracked gas is way better from an air pollution point of view And worse for water quality
- jonnycomputer 7y ago
  worse than coal? I doubt it.
ryanmarsh 7y ago
How does one quantify the methane leaks from well heads, pipelines, and facilities? Are we speaking of known loss of primary containment? LOPC is EPA reportable. Or are we saying there are other leaks which are not being reported but we somehow know those figures?
elhudy 7y ago
Would you say that it's also important to have infrastructure in place for renewable natural gas? Most natural gas companies have set goals for moving to percentages of renewable natural gas in the near future. The same cannot be said of coal plants.
dclusin 7y ago
A few years ago NASA launched the Aqua satellite which has the capability to measure and visualize methane hotspots[1]. Hopefully this will allow us to mitigate the well head methane leaks. But I agree that this is a bridge technology at best and we need to transition to renewables ASAP. 1 - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87681/a-global-view-of-methane https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87681/a-global-view...
mrfusion 7y ago
What if we fixed the leaks though? The leaks aren’t a problem inherent to natural gas.
dennisgorelik 7y ago
> as bad as coal for climate This statement incorrectly implies that increasing Earth temperature is bad for climate. A warmer climate has both advantages and disadvantages for humans. The advantages of a warmer climate are more significant: 1) Easier to grow crops. 2) More comfortable to live closer to the poles (Canada, Siberia, Iceland, Greenland).
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  It is true that we have been in a cold period. What's hazardous is the rate of change our carbon emissions are causing. When environment changes fast, there are extinctions. We are changing it faster than ever.
adrianN 7y ago
Building lots of gas plants is not as bad as it sounds. Power-to-gas is a decent way of storing renewable energy and you need those gas plants to turn that back into power.

misiti3780 7y ago

Yep, in 2017 the US became the largest exporter of crude oil, surpassing Saudi Arabia because of fracking. American natural gas production, which had been essentially flat since the mid-1970s, jumped by nearly 43 percent between 2007 and 2017.

dcolkitt 7y ago

> But when you consider the methane leaks from wellheads and pipelines and facilities it is roughly as bad as coal for climate. This makes intuitive sense. But do you have a source for how that calculation was determined. My understanding is that the impact of methane viz-a-viz carbon is highly sensitive to the time frame that you're considering. Methane is highly potent in terms of warning but quickly breaks down in the atmosphere.

Dumblydorr 7y ago
Quickly is a relative term. Methane won't exist for millennia like CO2, but it will contribute to positive feedback loops in the coming decades in the climate that lead to further warming. Ideally, gas should be deployed as a transitional and backup energy source; let's use it to kill coal, then let's use it as flexible generation once renewables are much higher %. This is assuming batteries and other storage don't ramp quickly enough.

uncoder0 7y ago

The upside of methane is that it's short lived in the atmosphere with a half life in the atmosphere of ~7 years. At the end of the day we do need more nuclear it's the best solution and the newest generation of reactors can consume the 'waste' from our older generation plants, it's a win/win.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Nuclear guy here. Burning old plant's waste is extraordinarily expensive and we need to reduce nuclear costs overall, so I don't think waste burning is a good option at the moment. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic repositories like the one under construction at Onkalo in Finland are the solution for nuclear waste. Let's establish long-term disposal like this to put the concern to bed and then worry about breeding and reprocessing if and when it becomes necessary in 60+ years. There is no shortage of nuclear fuel in sight.

lacker 7y ago

Natural gas is not at all "roughly as bad as coal for climate". There is a lot of research indicating this, so I will just point to one article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-really-better-coal-180949739/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-re... Natural gas isn't the ultimate solution, of course, but it's a mistake to treat it the same as coal.

jorblumesea 7y ago
> If too much methane leaks during production, though, the benefits will be lost Right in the sub title. Are you willing to bet that methane leaks are poorly tracked or an "honor system"? I am.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Having lived in coal mining country, and visited a coal mine, I'm not. Methane and other gasses that leak during coal mining are carefully monitored and tracked because they're a hazard not only to the safety of the miners, but to the entire operation. An explosion can kill dozens, destroy the mine, and leave it burning for decades. But I will state that I'm an outsider in this field, and I suspect you are, too. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge can comment more authoritatively.
  - pyrale 7y ago
    This quote applies to fracking operations.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    It's closely tracked when it's something that could seriously impact the ability of the operation to continue producing revenue. But what about when it's simply an environmental externality? Some contaminated water supplies can be conveniently swept under the rug, who's going to know and if they do how are they going to prove that you did it? Much better not to keep records on that type of thing and look the other way.
  - 7y ago

Retric 7y ago

Unlike CO2 Methane has a half life of ~7 years in the atmosphere, thus front loading warming before breaking down into CO2 and water. So, in terms of climate impact in 2040+, natural gas burned today is significantly better than coal.

kingkawn 7y ago
If it breaks down into CO2 after the 7 years doesn’t that mean it continues to be a climate changing element?
- Retric 7y ago
  It’s a question of scale. Methane is useful fuel, so leaks are an exception rather than the most common result. Spilled gasoline when fueling your car also results in atmospheric CO2, but you produce vastly more CO2 from what ends up in your tank.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    There is plenty of evidence that leakyness is a common feature of natural gas infrastructure. The Methane being leaked is 86x more potent than co2 over 20 years and 34x more potent over 100 years. At 1% leakage todays natural gas emissions don't gain a climate advantage over coal until around 2100. At 2% leakage todays natural gas emissions are still significantly worse than coal in 2100. https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/global-spike-in-atmospheric-methane-linked-to-fracking-322843 https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/glo... http://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918 http://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-le... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
    - frank2 7y ago
      Interesting. Oil companies frack to get petroleum, and are OK with burning the natural gas at the well head. I get the impression that a big reason they choose to capture the natural gas instead is criticism of just burning it by environmentalists, but maybe it is more environmentally friendly to just burn it in the absence of the political will to ban fracking. (I am assuming that burning at the well head is an effective way to reduce the amount of unburnt gas released.)

tomatotomato37 7y ago

How did I know the first comment was going to be some variation of "Ignore the data because the US is doing bad things and making the problem worse." Not everything is bad data or a conspiracy, sometimes it actually is progress, so stop whinging and take the fucking win for once.

aalleavitch 7y ago
When there's a massive profit motive for someone to lie to you about something, you approach it as if it were a lie. If it's a win I'll take it as a win, but I'm going to scrutinize it in the extreme before I go about taking anything that amounts to good PR for a corporate entity's political aims for granted.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  The actual data comes from an independent research group which is also publishing articles like this[0] and this[1], so I think it's safe to say the true researchers aren't just acting as corporate mouthpieces. [0] https://rhg.com/research/an-eu-green-new-deal-requires-a-far-higher-price-on-carbon/ https://rhg.com/research/an-eu-green-new-deal-requires-a-far... [1]https://rhg.com/research/hotter-poorer-and-more-unequal/ https://rhg.com/research/hotter-poorer-and-more-unequal/
acidburnNSA 7y ago
I'm just pointing out that we're switching from a crazy-high carbon source to a super-high carbon source. This isn't a climate solution. It's not a win. It's a distraction. We need to switch to low-carbon sources like solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and wind. Not fracked gas. Fracked gas is a high-carbon climate-change-causing fuel and needs to be treated as one.
- oh-4-fucks-sake 7y ago
  Agree like 80% here. I'd add that: Hydro: when, especially when used on rivers near coasts with migrating fish--isn't the panacea it was historically thought to be--it ruins the flow of nutrient-rich silt that feeds carbon-capturing flora and cuts off nutrients to small fish which hurts big fish and apex predators. Tidal: though great in theory--can do a lot of harm when installed naively on the coast in the middle of sensitive ecosystems--though I think some of the experimental deeper, further-offshore installations might mitigate that. Nuclear: I think we biffed this one for decades--and though the technology is there to make it work. There sadly just isn't enough political and public support anymore. Not to mention to scale up 100s of billions or trillions of dollars of nuclear plants could easily take 20-30 years--time that I don't think we have. Geo: Works great but only in specific regions. That leaves solar and wind as the biggest options that we can scale up quickly and can likely get political and public support for. N. Europe is killing it with its MASSIVE offshore wind installations and thank goodness solar continues to fall in price. In the US, anyway, I think the right liberal leadership could budget big for this and tackle a big chunk of the problem in 10 years. But, King Cheeto Fucktard is going to have to be out before that will happen meaningfully with Federal mondy. C'est la vie...

beat 7y ago

Renewables are definitely a factor at this point, and a growing one. Nuclear is not... new nuclear production is basically at a standstill, because it's far too expensive. Cost is what's killing coal, and it's killing traditional nuclear as well.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Operating nuclear plants are shutting down early in some places because electricity revenue has gone down because cheap fracked natural gas has brought prices down. Trading perfectly-fine NPPs for fracked gas plants at this time in our climate history for 1 cent/kWh is a travesty.
- beat 7y ago
  And how would you prevent this? The flip side of nuclear's stability at high loads over long term is that the economics are all built around running at high load. If they lose major customers to cheaper competition, they can no longer operate profitably.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Give nuclear plants subsidies in the form of zero-emission credits like New York and Illinois did: https://statepowerproject.org/illinois/ https://statepowerproject.org/illinois/ https://statepowerproject.org/new-york/ https://statepowerproject.org/new-york/ That way low-cost natural gas generation can still replace coal fired generators but won't drive premature nuclear retirements.
  - lkbm 7y ago
    By internalizing the cost of pollution, specifically, a carbon tax (though also a methane tax and a mercury tax). I don't know if nuclear plants are covering the costs of storing spent fuel, but they should, and coal and natural gas plants should have to pay for the crap they release into the air. Markets will only allocate resources appropriately if you internalize externalities. I can't think of a case where doing so is the wrong decision.

imtringued 7y ago

You can't lock in gas plants because they are less capital intensive, require less staff, they can throttle based on demand and finally the fuel costs are higher than renewables so it always makes sense to throttle them down when renewables are available instead of clogging the grid like coal plants. They are one key part of the needed energy storage mix.

tectonic 7y ago

A really good review of methane and climate change: https://www.darrinqualman.com/methane/ https://www.darrinqualman.com/methane/

mirimir 7y ago

I suspect that these estimates don't include methane leaks.

Zenst 7y ago

Be interesting to see water quality (or water emissions if you like) for the same period. Mindful that fracking has been associated with water quality in some areas.

merpnderp 7y ago

I’m not sure I believe this. My state over the last 20 years went from 70% coal 30% natgas to 25% coal, 25% wind, 50% natgas. We’re fricking killing it when it comes to fighting air pollution. Only reason other states don’t follow suit is they politically can’t embrace natgas like we can, and without gas turbines, you can’t expand wind as easily.

mac01021 7y ago

Are those methane leaks factored into the determination that US Emissions have fallen 2.1%?

api 7y ago

Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere than CO2. Also unlike CO2 emissions there is an economic incentive to fix methane leaks: you're leaking product!

arbuge 7y ago

> But when you consider the methane leaks from wellheads and pipelines and facilities it is roughly as bad as coal for climate. This is a solvable problem which can and should be addressed by appropriate regulation. The real problem is that the current administration seems intent on not doing so: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/epa-methane-greenhouse-gas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/epa-methane-green...

godelski 7y ago

> a little better from a direct carbon emission point of view. Usually I'm on your side about these things, but I was surprised by your comment. Here's the IPCC numbers [0]. Natural gas has about half the emissions that coal does. With CCS it almost gets to the levels of renewables and nuclear. I'm not saying this should be a long term solution or even endorsing this solution. But natural gas is definitely more than a little better than coal in terms of climate. > This is overall not a good story for climate as we lock in gas plants for decades. I do agree with this point, mostly. We can still push for CCS additions to already operating plants. I know you know better than most that renewables don't work as effectively everywhere and batteries are there for long term solutions (though clearly we're building gas where we don't have to and that IS a big problem). I also know you're an expert when it comes to understanding nuclear. As for energy, we need more of it. If we can't build new renewables or nuclear, I'll take a new gas plant over a new coal plant any day. I do think everyone here is in agreement that we'd rather have renewables though (and several also want nuclear). [0] https://i.imgur.com/wkvjleP.png https://i.imgur.com/wkvjleP.png

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

stjohnswarts 7y ago

It's not just a "little better" on CO2 emissions, it emits half the amount of CO2 that coal does per unit energy. That's pretty significant.

breakyerself 7y ago
You have to account for methane leakage too though.

DenisM 7y ago

Methane decomposes in the atmosphere [1]. CO2 is forever. Mechanism Methane removal (Mt) Tropospheric oxidation 506 Stratospheric oxidation 40 Soil uptake 30 Total 576 Emissions 598 [1] https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk...

jefftk 7y ago
Methane decomposes in the atmosphere... into CO2.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Yes but the point is converting coal plants to burn methane - even if fracking results in some leaked methane - is still a significant net gain.

hanniabu 7y ago

> Fracked gas is way better from an air pollution point of view And worse for water quality

jonnycomputer 7y ago
worse than coal? I doubt it.

ryanmarsh 7y ago

How does one quantify the methane leaks from well heads, pipelines, and facilities? Are we speaking of known loss of primary containment? LOPC is EPA reportable. Or are we saying there are other leaks which are not being reported but we somehow know those figures?

elhudy 7y ago

Would you say that it's also important to have infrastructure in place for renewable natural gas? Most natural gas companies have set goals for moving to percentages of renewable natural gas in the near future. The same cannot be said of coal plants.

dclusin 7y ago

A few years ago NASA launched the Aqua satellite which has the capability to measure and visualize methane hotspots[1]. Hopefully this will allow us to mitigate the well head methane leaks. But I agree that this is a bridge technology at best and we need to transition to renewables ASAP. 1 - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87681/a-global-view-of-methane https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87681/a-global-view...

mrfusion 7y ago

What if we fixed the leaks though? The leaks aren’t a problem inherent to natural gas.

dennisgorelik 7y ago

> as bad as coal for climate This statement incorrectly implies that increasing Earth temperature is bad for climate. A warmer climate has both advantages and disadvantages for humans. The advantages of a warmer climate are more significant: 1) Easier to grow crops. 2) More comfortable to live closer to the poles (Canada, Siberia, Iceland, Greenland).

acidburnNSA 7y ago
It is true that we have been in a cold period. What's hazardous is the rate of change our carbon emissions are causing. When environment changes fast, there are extinctions. We are changing it faster than ever.

adrianN 7y ago

Building lots of gas plants is not as bad as it sounds. Power-to-gas is a decent way of storing renewable energy and you need those gas plants to turn that back into power.