10 ms·

Better satellites and other aerial survey data has determined that oil and gas related methane emissions are far, far higher than industry reports. Everywhere

Better satellites and other aerial survey data has determined that oil and gas related methane emissions are far, far higher than industry reports. Everywhere independent researchers look along the production, transmission, distribution and end use pipeline they find more leakage than has been assumed because industry has provided the numbers the assumptions are based on for years. Along some particularly leaky production paths methane emissions are so great that the impact is greater than coal over 100 year timescale. For example, some parts of NM Permian have a 9% (!) leakage rate. When combusted methane releases about half the amount of CO2 that coal does. The eGHG potential of methane is 20x CO2 over 100 year timescale, so you have to add 180% to the total GHG potential, making it 40% worse than coal w/o even considering other leakage along the pipeline. https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/methane-leaks-are-far-worse-estimates-least-new-mexico-theres-hope https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/methane-leaks-are-f...

Retric 2y ago
Those 100 year timescale numbers are misleading as the impact is so front loaded. They only make sense when talking about an emissions that are constant through long timescales.
- thinkcontext 2y ago
  I've heard people argue that its both too aggressive and too conservative. I'm in the too conservative camp, we need to figure things out sooner than 100 years and the risk of a feedback loop is high with methane. Its fine to assert that a single number doesn't capture the nuances of the situation. But we have to keep in mind that 1) the heat trapped by the methane stays trapped even after it has decayed 2) methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing significantly faster than co2 3) the more methane in the atmosphere the slower its rate of decay
  - thfuran 2y ago
    >1) the heat trapped by the methane stays trapped even after it has decayed Not really. It would be present, but not trapped. Absent other factors, that would mean earth is above its equilibrium temperature and would cool once methane loss permits it to radiate heat more effectively. Either that or it shoots us in the face with a clathrate gun. There's really only one way to find out.
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      Let’s not find out if there’s a clathrate gun coming for us? Please?
  - Retric 2y ago
    1) Over days sure, but not on the relevant timescales. 2) In terms of impact on climate the difference from 1990 to 2024 is mostly from CO2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/File:1979-_Radiative_forcing_-_climate_change_-_global_warming_-_EPA_NOAA.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/Fil... 3) It’s nonlinear, increasing methane concentrations also benefit methane scavenging bacteria which should increase the rate of breakdown as concentrations increase. OH only lasts around 1 second in the atmosphere so in theory it should be depleted by increasing atmospheric methane, but methane is only one of several things it reacts with so the difference is minimal without orders of magnitude change in Methane.
    - ljf 2y ago
      Don't forget that Methane decays into water vapour and CO2
james_david 2y ago
In Massachusetts, Lost and Unaccounted for Gas (LAUG) is estimated per mile of pipe, rather than evaluated by regulators or even industry. It is a simple multiplication problem with little bearing on reality. Consumers bear the cost of LAUG while the utilities are guaranteed a 10% profit on their infrastructure expenses. This, along with subsidies for leak prone pipe replacement, leads to needless investment in outmoded fossil fuel infrastructure (i.e., pipe replacement) being prioritized over leak repair.
- skybrian 2y ago
  Meanwhile in California, PG&E underfunded maintenance, perhaps because regulators squeezed too hard? Eventually we had things like the San Bruno gas explosion and wildfires so bad that PG&E went bankrupt. Finding the optimal amount of regulation seems difficult. It seems like too blunt an instrument. Incentives are no substitute for technical people who want to do what's right.
  - downWidOutaFite 2y ago
    Government owning the utility would be the answer. But politicians like to have a 3rd party to blame for price hikes and poor service .
    - skybrian 2y ago
      I’m unconvinced that a change to new management, government-run or not, would automatically get technically competent people hired and give them the decision-making power to do things right. Sure, it might, but it’s hardly guaranteed.
      - ericd 2y ago
        I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that you can make large multiples of the amount you'd make working on this kind of thing by working on something relatively non-productive like finance, consulting, adtech, etc. A large percentage of my engineering class went into one of those. One of the smartest guys I knew there, who studied nuclear engineering, now does healthcare private equity. The incentives are all messed up. We should do some combination of making these jobs more attractive and making those relatively extractive jobs less attractive.
downWidOutaFite 2y ago
We're cooked
xyst 2y ago
This is why the O&G backed SCOTUS has defanged the regulatory agencies.
Lerc 2y ago
Wouldn't that mean that the impact of the methane per unit is less if the measured outcomes were assuming much lower levels. Presumably that would be good news if you could reduce the emissions to the level they thought they were.
- thinkcontext 2y ago
  No. The current inventory of methane sources even with these upwards estimates for industry are unable to account for what is observed in the atmosphere. This is a big topic of current research.

Retric 2y ago

Those 100 year timescale numbers are misleading as the impact is so front loaded. They only make sense when talking about an emissions that are constant through long timescales.

thinkcontext 2y ago
I've heard people argue that its both too aggressive and too conservative. I'm in the too conservative camp, we need to figure things out sooner than 100 years and the risk of a feedback loop is high with methane. Its fine to assert that a single number doesn't capture the nuances of the situation. But we have to keep in mind that 1) the heat trapped by the methane stays trapped even after it has decayed 2) methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing significantly faster than co2 3) the more methane in the atmosphere the slower its rate of decay
- thfuran 2y ago
  >1) the heat trapped by the methane stays trapped even after it has decayed Not really. It would be present, but not trapped. Absent other factors, that would mean earth is above its equilibrium temperature and would cool once methane loss permits it to radiate heat more effectively. Either that or it shoots us in the face with a clathrate gun. There's really only one way to find out.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    Let’s not find out if there’s a clathrate gun coming for us? Please?
- Retric 2y ago
  1) Over days sure, but not on the relevant timescales. 2) In terms of impact on climate the difference from 1990 to 2024 is mostly from CO2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/File:1979-_Radiative_forcing_-_climate_change_-_global_warming_-_EPA_NOAA.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/Fil... 3) It’s nonlinear, increasing methane concentrations also benefit methane scavenging bacteria which should increase the rate of breakdown as concentrations increase. OH only lasts around 1 second in the atmosphere so in theory it should be depleted by increasing atmospheric methane, but methane is only one of several things it reacts with so the difference is minimal without orders of magnitude change in Methane.
  - ljf 2y ago
    Don't forget that Methane decays into water vapour and CO2

james_david 2y ago

In Massachusetts, Lost and Unaccounted for Gas (LAUG) is estimated per mile of pipe, rather than evaluated by regulators or even industry. It is a simple multiplication problem with little bearing on reality. Consumers bear the cost of LAUG while the utilities are guaranteed a 10% profit on their infrastructure expenses. This, along with subsidies for leak prone pipe replacement, leads to needless investment in outmoded fossil fuel infrastructure (i.e., pipe replacement) being prioritized over leak repair.

skybrian 2y ago
Meanwhile in California, PG&E underfunded maintenance, perhaps because regulators squeezed too hard? Eventually we had things like the San Bruno gas explosion and wildfires so bad that PG&E went bankrupt. Finding the optimal amount of regulation seems difficult. It seems like too blunt an instrument. Incentives are no substitute for technical people who want to do what's right.
- downWidOutaFite 2y ago
  Government owning the utility would be the answer. But politicians like to have a 3rd party to blame for price hikes and poor service .
  - skybrian 2y ago
    I’m unconvinced that a change to new management, government-run or not, would automatically get technically competent people hired and give them the decision-making power to do things right. Sure, it might, but it’s hardly guaranteed.
    - ericd 2y ago
      I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that you can make large multiples of the amount you'd make working on this kind of thing by working on something relatively non-productive like finance, consulting, adtech, etc. A large percentage of my engineering class went into one of those. One of the smartest guys I knew there, who studied nuclear engineering, now does healthcare private equity. The incentives are all messed up. We should do some combination of making these jobs more attractive and making those relatively extractive jobs less attractive.

downWidOutaFite 2y ago

We're cooked

xyst 2y ago

This is why the O&G backed SCOTUS has defanged the regulatory agencies.

Lerc 2y ago

Wouldn't that mean that the impact of the methane per unit is less if the measured outcomes were assuming much lower levels. Presumably that would be good news if you could reduce the emissions to the level they thought they were.

thinkcontext 2y ago
No. The current inventory of methane sources even with these upwards estimates for industry are unable to account for what is observed in the atmosphere. This is a big topic of current research.