8 ms·

I don't think natural gas is actually a carbon-neutral alternative to coal, my understanding is that methane leakage makes it almost as bad as coal in the long

I don't think natural gas is actually a carbon-neutral alternative to coal, my understanding is that methane leakage makes it almost as bad as coal in the long term. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/30/18643819/climate-change-natural-gas-middle-ground https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/30/1864381...

causality0 6y ago
True, but it doesn't have the incredibly horrific non-carbon pollution problems of coal. The things almost every coal plant in the world does to nearby rivers would nauseate most people. Fly ash produced by coal plants releases one hundred times the radiation into the environment as a nuclear plant of the same capacity.
- avalys 6y ago
  That’s only true because the amount of radiation released by a nuclear plant in normal operation is also negligible.
  - willis936 6y ago
    The actual number closer to 1,000 than 100. There is a lot of uranium and thorium in coal. Not all of it is captured when coal is burned. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
    - makomk 6y ago
      "A lot" is relative. From what I can tell, coal ash contains about the same amount of uranium and thorium as granite and slightly more than ordinary soil. (Of course, it's less concentrated in the coal itself, which is largely carbon and hydrocarbons that gets burnt off.) The main reason coal power releases so much radiation compared to nuclear because there's a lot of coal burnt and normal operation of nuclear power plants also releases very little. What's more scary is the production of things like rare earth minerals - that quite heavily concentrates the uranium and thorium as part of the extraction process, producing large quantities of relatively radioactive mining waste.
jweir 6y ago
Methane breaks down much faster than carbon and methane leaks can be mitigated. You don’t have to have them.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  It breaks down into carbdon dioxide.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Coal leaks methane too. A while ago there were people here pointing that even more than natural gas; I'm not convinced, but both are on the same ballpark. Anyway, methane is a short term problem. It's CO2 that is long term.
melling 6y ago
I didn’t say it was carbon neutral. Coal adds much more CO2 to the atmosphere. At least twice as much? Rather than losing more time waiting for the perfect solution, a big step 10 years earlier might buy us additional time.
fuoqi 6y ago
A LOT of methane is released during coal mining as well, it's estimated that 9% of total global methane emissions can be attributed to it: https://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions#q6 https://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions#q6
joe-collins 6y ago
It isn't neutral at all, it's merely less-intensive. Leakage is a problem with straightforward extant solutions, but well operators are poorly incentivized to implement those solutions—the loss is often too small to substantially impact their profit, and the leak is invisible (natural gas being colorless) so it's easy to turn a blind eye and not implement effective monitoring.
- iamthemonster 6y ago
  I'm not sure how we would implement any more effective monitoring of natural gas leakage. We have gas detectors all over the facility and personnel walk around with gas detectors on their coveralls. Flowmeters are generally not accurate to <1%. I would expect the only credible thing we can do is design it out, e.g. by running seal vents to flare rather than safe location, improving reliability, flareless operation etc. I imagine the majority of "leakage" must be unburnt hydrocarbon in flare and GT exhausts. But when you say "straightforward extant solutions" what are you referring to? In the industry, nobody particularly assesses "leakage" or really designs for minimising leakage per se.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    It could be mandated that all facility pressures be below atmospheric pressure. Then all leaks would lead to air getting into the pipes rather than gas getting out. Clearly with that being the case, one needs much bigger more expensive pipes.
    - treeman79 6y ago
      Had my lungs ruined by natural gas leaks. This solution sounds very scary.
    - iamthemonster 6y ago
      That would easily solve the problem, by making any gas processing facilities completely uneconomic to operate ;) I am quite interested in the idea of methane leakage though. There seems to be a growing consensus online that it exists and is significant, but within industry it is really not recognised.
reitzensteinm 6y ago
Don't you mean the short term? Methane being a very potent greenhouse gas but it breaks down with time.
ekianjo 6y ago
Natural gas is way cleaner than coal overall. It does not release particles that kill people over the long term either. It's a pretty clear cut between the two.
- lysp 6y ago
  If you only compare the burning stage.

causality0 6y ago

True, but it doesn't have the incredibly horrific non-carbon pollution problems of coal. The things almost every coal plant in the world does to nearby rivers would nauseate most people. Fly ash produced by coal plants releases one hundred times the radiation into the environment as a nuclear plant of the same capacity.

avalys 6y ago
That’s only true because the amount of radiation released by a nuclear plant in normal operation is also negligible.
- willis936 6y ago
  The actual number closer to 1,000 than 100. There is a lot of uranium and thorium in coal. Not all of it is captured when coal is burned. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
  - makomk 6y ago
    "A lot" is relative. From what I can tell, coal ash contains about the same amount of uranium and thorium as granite and slightly more than ordinary soil. (Of course, it's less concentrated in the coal itself, which is largely carbon and hydrocarbons that gets burnt off.) The main reason coal power releases so much radiation compared to nuclear because there's a lot of coal burnt and normal operation of nuclear power plants also releases very little. What's more scary is the production of things like rare earth minerals - that quite heavily concentrates the uranium and thorium as part of the extraction process, producing large quantities of relatively radioactive mining waste.

jweir 6y ago

Methane breaks down much faster than carbon and methane leaks can be mitigated. You don’t have to have them.

Nasrudith 6y ago
It breaks down into carbdon dioxide.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Coal leaks methane too. A while ago there were people here pointing that even more than natural gas; I'm not convinced, but both are on the same ballpark. Anyway, methane is a short term problem. It's CO2 that is long term.

melling 6y ago

I didn’t say it was carbon neutral. Coal adds much more CO2 to the atmosphere. At least twice as much? Rather than losing more time waiting for the perfect solution, a big step 10 years earlier might buy us additional time.

fuoqi 6y ago

A LOT of methane is released during coal mining as well, it's estimated that 9% of total global methane emissions can be attributed to it: https://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions#q6 https://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions#q6

joe-collins 6y ago

It isn't neutral at all, it's merely less-intensive. Leakage is a problem with straightforward extant solutions, but well operators are poorly incentivized to implement those solutions—the loss is often too small to substantially impact their profit, and the leak is invisible (natural gas being colorless) so it's easy to turn a blind eye and not implement effective monitoring.

iamthemonster 6y ago
I'm not sure how we would implement any more effective monitoring of natural gas leakage. We have gas detectors all over the facility and personnel walk around with gas detectors on their coveralls. Flowmeters are generally not accurate to <1%. I would expect the only credible thing we can do is design it out, e.g. by running seal vents to flare rather than safe location, improving reliability, flareless operation etc. I imagine the majority of "leakage" must be unburnt hydrocarbon in flare and GT exhausts. But when you say "straightforward extant solutions" what are you referring to? In the industry, nobody particularly assesses "leakage" or really designs for minimising leakage per se.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  It could be mandated that all facility pressures be below atmospheric pressure. Then all leaks would lead to air getting into the pipes rather than gas getting out. Clearly with that being the case, one needs much bigger more expensive pipes.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Had my lungs ruined by natural gas leaks. This solution sounds very scary.
  - iamthemonster 6y ago
    That would easily solve the problem, by making any gas processing facilities completely uneconomic to operate ;) I am quite interested in the idea of methane leakage though. There seems to be a growing consensus online that it exists and is significant, but within industry it is really not recognised.

reitzensteinm 6y ago

Don't you mean the short term? Methane being a very potent greenhouse gas but it breaks down with time.

ekianjo 6y ago

Natural gas is way cleaner than coal overall. It does not release particles that kill people over the long term either. It's a pretty clear cut between the two.

lysp 6y ago
If you only compare the burning stage.