3 ms·

Leaks Can Make Natural Gas as Bad for the Climate as Coal, a Study Says

21 points by miguelazo 3y ago

miguelazo 3y ago
>It takes as little as 0.2 percent of gas to leak to make natural gas as big a driver of climate change as coal, the study found. That’s a tiny margin of error for a gas that is notorious for leaking from drill sites, processing plants and the pipes that transport it into power stations or homes and kitchens.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Methane/natural gas has terrifying potential. The impact is so big. On the plus side though, it only persists in the atmosphere for ~12 years, whereas co2 just hangs around indefinitely. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Doesn't it mostly just get covered to CO2?
    - wdh505 3y ago
      Natural gas has a much higher ability to trap heat than equivalent volume of co2. It eventually turns to co2 without burning after ~12 years
  - miguelazo 3y ago
    Yes, but does risking a tipping point within the next 12 years (22, by the time we move past it?) from the much higher near term impact seem like a good idea? I think the real point is to debunk natural gas as an acceptable energy source going forward. Obviously, it will take time to phase it out, but there are people out there making the argument that it's a good solution to the variability problem with renewables.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    The absorption bands for Methane [1] are mostly overlapped by those for water vapour of which there is a nearly limitless supply. Only the shortest wavelength band (~2.3 µm) does not have much overlap but this is also the one with the lowest absorption. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band#/media/File:At...
the_third_wave 3y ago
Climate paranoia can make New York Times (et al.) bad for mental health, a study says [1]. Just searching for the phrase 'climate paranoia bad for mental health' shows a deluge of publications from the likes of The Guardian - who seems to be the worst offender here - and the NYT all vying with each other for the most dire predictions and the most stringent calls for serious sacrifice. What do these publications get out of this constant stream of 'The End Is Nigh, Repent!'? Does this help them to peddle papers? Do they feel virtuous by putting this out or do they consider it a vice not to publish their daily dose of doom? By now I consider these publications to be off-limits for children up to their early teens since they need to be at least old enough to understand that these publishers have an agenda which drives their decisions and that all those predictions of coming doom should be seen in the light of that agenda. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00008-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

21 points by miguelazo 3y ago

>It takes as little as 0.2 percent of gas to leak to make natural gas as big a driver of climate change as coal, the study found. That’s a tiny margin of error for a gas that is notorious for leaking from drill sites, processing plants and the pipes that transport it into power stations or homes and kitchens.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Methane/natural gas has terrifying potential. The impact is so big. On the plus side though, it only persists in the atmosphere for ~12 years, whereas co2 just hangs around indefinitely. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...
- thfuran 3y ago
  Doesn't it mostly just get covered to CO2?
  - wdh505 3y ago
    Natural gas has a much higher ability to trap heat than equivalent volume of co2. It eventually turns to co2 without burning after ~12 years
- miguelazo 3y ago
  Yes, but does risking a tipping point within the next 12 years (22, by the time we move past it?) from the much higher near term impact seem like a good idea? I think the real point is to debunk natural gas as an acceptable energy source going forward. Obviously, it will take time to phase it out, but there are people out there making the argument that it's a good solution to the variability problem with renewables.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  The absorption bands for Methane [1] are mostly overlapped by those for water vapour of which there is a nearly limitless supply. Only the shortest wavelength band (~2.3 µm) does not have much overlap but this is also the one with the lowest absorption. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band#/media/File:At...

the_third_wave 3y ago

Climate paranoia can make New York Times (et al.) bad for mental health, a study says [1]. Just searching for the phrase 'climate paranoia bad for mental health' shows a deluge of publications from the likes of The Guardian - who seems to be the worst offender here - and the NYT all vying with each other for the most dire predictions and the most stringent calls for serious sacrifice. What do these publications get out of this constant stream of 'The End Is Nigh, Repent!'? Does this help them to peddle papers? Do they feel virtuous by putting this out or do they consider it a vice not to publish their daily dose of doom? By now I consider these publications to be off-limits for children up to their early teens since they need to be at least old enough to understand that these publishers have an agenda which drives their decisions and that all those predictions of coming doom should be seen in the light of that agenda. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00008-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...