8 ms·

Two Climate Analysts Fault Gas Leaks, but Not as a Big Warming Threat

25 points by Gravityloss 13y ago

joshuaellinger 13y ago
Which is not to say that it is good: "The real argument against over-reliance on fracking as a solution to the climate problem is that its value as a bridge fuel has been oversold." It's like recommending to a smoker that they switch to chewing tobacco because it lowers their risk of dying from cancer.
- iwwr 13y ago
  The question is, bridge to what?
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years. It's just that nuclear plants are expensive to build (and run) and electric cars aren't common yet.
    - acqq 13y ago
      Citation needed re enough Uranium. AFAIK: 1) whoever says anything about energy with thousands of years assumes that our energy needs aren't going to grow. The modern states, economies and populations however expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during the last 200 years. 2) There's a lot of U only if the one once used is reprocessed, howerver there are significant problems with reprocessing now.
      - rimantas 13y ago
        > The modern states, economies and populations however > expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during > the last 200 years. I heard the same about real estate prices some five years ago.
        ceph_ 13y ago
        Human population isn't a speculative market. (Yet)
      - NickM 13y ago
        Citation needed re growth of energy usage. According to http://is.gd/K6QdKz http://is.gd/K6QdKz energy usage per capita in the US has dropped to its lowest level since the 1960s. Total energy usage in the country peaked in 2007 and has fallen since then, despite a steadily increasing population.
    - peterpathname 13y ago
      most of the planet's uranium is in very low concentrations in the sea. We certainly don't have enough commercially viable uranium (ie, that can be extracted and enriched with less energy inputs than they might produce) to maintain current rates of consumption for more than around 100 years using existing technologies.
      - adrianN 13y ago
        Long enough to get fusion plants online.
    - rorrr2 13y ago
      > We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Human population is growing exponentially. Technology is growing at least exponentially, probably faster.
      - kiba 13y ago
        Human population is growing exponentially. And this is true in what circumstance? The world fertility rate is going down and in some countries, like Japan, the population is shrinking. That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Citation?
      - protomyth 13y ago
        That's not exactly true. It looks like the closer to first world a place gets, the less children. It looks like we will have a top off in population (barring a sudden loss caused by a big war).
  - akjj 13y ago
    Bridge to solar, wind, and maybe other renewables.
  - lumberjack 13y ago
    A Dyson Sphere. On a more serious note. I see the immediate future as a focus not only on cleaner energy production but also a more efficient and far reaching energy grid as in many places neither nuclear nor renewable energy production are feasible. Gas being cheaper and cleaner (ref. air pollution) is a sensible investment for those areas who are still relying on dirtier fossil-fuel powered energy production.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Natural gas is often cited as a bridge to more renewable energy. The thing about renewable energy like wind and solar is that it has sudden variability. To satisfy your needs with it, you need some other form of energy that can be ramped up and down just as quickly as a counterbalance. The obvious candidate would be batteries, but we do not have battery systems large enough to supply the grid for minutes at a time. (People are working on this. But we do not currently have it.) This is where natural gas comes in. It produces lots of energy. And you can ramp energy production up and down very efficiently, almost instantaneously. By contrast compare something like nuclear power. A nuclear power plant is basically a huge steam engine with the water heated by radioactivity. To start generating power you bring the water to a boil. To stop you let it cool down. But big tanks of water do not heat up or slow down fast - you need hours. Thus you can supply a grid from nuclear, but you can't counterbalance nuclear and renewables. Therefore the common vision is that we move from a largely coal base to a mixed natural gas/renewable base, and then to a renewable/battery base. So natural gas is seen as a bridge to an all renewable future.
northwest 13y ago
And it still smells pretty awful for my immediate environment in the short term.
- krugmanlol 13y ago
  Natural gas is odorless. The odor is added.
mzr 13y ago
Come to the Barnett Shale, and see how it isn't good, either. You can't drink it, and we're losing our aquifers to contamination from drilling, fracking, and the waste water injection wells.
- IlPeach 13y ago
  not the first time I read about this. should be reason enough to avoid it.
peterpathname 13y ago
I call BS. for rich developed nations, gas is an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from the genuine renewable and sustainable energy alternatives which are already taking shape around us. there is an argument about using gas in the developing world (where they need cheap energy fast), but wealthy nations should be leapfrogging into the same renewable energy solutions that will inevitably dominate our futures, rather than 'investing' in new gas plants with their long 30-40 year lifespan.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  It's BS. To limit global warming to 2°C we would need to leave 80% of already discovered hydrocarbon resources unused. This is same as producing CO2 at current level next 18 years and then stopping completely forever. We are already warmed +0.8°C and effects have been worse than expected. To be realistic, there is no signs that we are even trying to reduce global CO2 emissions, we are just trying to slow down the increase. There is no sign in stock markets that all those hydrocarbons will be left into the ground. From developed nations only Germany is trying to leapfrog, but it might fail due to economic/political reasons when the cost becomes clear to voters (well see). According to FAO, meat production causes 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than traffic. If we would be serious, we would have to solve that ASAP. Nobody is even thinking doing that. All actions in democratic countries are result of two forces: what people feel comfortable giving up and how much people fear global warming. People are not comfortable giving up anything even lightly significant even if they live in rich countries. There is not enough investments and technology is not advancing at the pace we would need to have to live comfortable life and saving the environment. If you have kids, take them diving to see coral reefs. It's last time to see. http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effect-of-ocean-acidification-on-corals http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidifica...
droithomme 13y ago
The article mentions natural gas is mostly methane (CH4). Here is the combustion reaction for burning methane: CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O Note right side of equation. The "climate scientists" cited in the referenced article have confusion on this issue, as they contrast the effects of methane releases to those of CO2. It's interesting to contemplate what has to occur for someone to adopt the title "scientist" and leading authority in a subject while remaining confused about freshman highschool chemistry. Burning natural gas may release some incidental uncombusted methane, but the major gaseous combustion product is clearly CO2. An unlearned person reading these articles would not know that from the way methane emissions are presented as the relevant issue. It's also interesting to see that methane has now been rehabilitated in some minds into a friendly and relatively clean emission after years of hysteria regarding the impending doom that is coming from cow flatulence; statements such as "A significant portion of [global greenhouse gas] emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide." (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/03/cow-flatulence.html http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/03/..., http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow...)
- tspike 13y ago
  I'm not sure what you're getting at. The scientists explicitly mention the fact that burning methane produces CO2: > If a methane molecule is burned, it produces one CO2 molecule. > Methane produces about 2 times as much energy as does coal for the same CO2. Perhaps the title on HN is a bad one, but the scientists are specifically arguing against the assertion that natural gas is even worse for the environment than coal because a large amount of it leaks into the atmosphere before it ever even has the chance to burn.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
  You should read the article. The issue is that CH4 is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, because of how strongly it absorbs IR [0]. Even small methane leaks are significant. This is counterbalanced by methane * Being less carbon-rich [than coal] -- looking at the right side of your equation, about half the energy comes from fusing hydrogen (H-O) as opposed to carbon (C=O) [1] * Allowing more efficient combustion (Muller says 60% vs. 44%) You cannot come to any conclusion here without doing the math! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Value... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_formation_(data_table) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fo...

25 points by Gravityloss 13y ago

Which is not to say that it is good: "The real argument against over-reliance on fracking as a solution to the climate problem is that its value as a bridge fuel has been oversold." It's like recommending to a smoker that they switch to chewing tobacco because it lowers their risk of dying from cancer.

iwwr 13y ago
The question is, bridge to what?
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years. It's just that nuclear plants are expensive to build (and run) and electric cars aren't common yet.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Citation needed re enough Uranium. AFAIK: 1) whoever says anything about energy with thousands of years assumes that our energy needs aren't going to grow. The modern states, economies and populations however expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during the last 200 years. 2) There's a lot of U only if the one once used is reprocessed, howerver there are significant problems with reprocessing now.
    - rimantas 13y ago
      > The modern states, economies and populations however > expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during > the last 200 years. I heard the same about real estate prices some five years ago.
      - ceph_ 13y ago
        Human population isn't a speculative market. (Yet)
    - NickM 13y ago
      Citation needed re growth of energy usage. According to http://is.gd/K6QdKz http://is.gd/K6QdKz energy usage per capita in the US has dropped to its lowest level since the 1960s. Total energy usage in the country peaked in 2007 and has fallen since then, despite a steadily increasing population.
  - peterpathname 13y ago
    most of the planet's uranium is in very low concentrations in the sea. We certainly don't have enough commercially viable uranium (ie, that can be extracted and enriched with less energy inputs than they might produce) to maintain current rates of consumption for more than around 100 years using existing technologies.
    - adrianN 13y ago
      Long enough to get fusion plants online.
  - rorrr2 13y ago
    > We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Human population is growing exponentially. Technology is growing at least exponentially, probably faster.
    - kiba 13y ago
      Human population is growing exponentially. And this is true in what circumstance? The world fertility rate is going down and in some countries, like Japan, the population is shrinking. That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Citation?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      That's not exactly true. It looks like the closer to first world a place gets, the less children. It looks like we will have a top off in population (barring a sudden loss caused by a big war).
- akjj 13y ago
  Bridge to solar, wind, and maybe other renewables.
- lumberjack 13y ago
  A Dyson Sphere. On a more serious note. I see the immediate future as a focus not only on cleaner energy production but also a more efficient and far reaching energy grid as in many places neither nuclear nor renewable energy production are feasible. Gas being cheaper and cleaner (ref. air pollution) is a sensible investment for those areas who are still relying on dirtier fossil-fuel powered energy production.
- btilly 13y ago
  Natural gas is often cited as a bridge to more renewable energy. The thing about renewable energy like wind and solar is that it has sudden variability. To satisfy your needs with it, you need some other form of energy that can be ramped up and down just as quickly as a counterbalance. The obvious candidate would be batteries, but we do not have battery systems large enough to supply the grid for minutes at a time. (People are working on this. But we do not currently have it.) This is where natural gas comes in. It produces lots of energy. And you can ramp energy production up and down very efficiently, almost instantaneously. By contrast compare something like nuclear power. A nuclear power plant is basically a huge steam engine with the water heated by radioactivity. To start generating power you bring the water to a boil. To stop you let it cool down. But big tanks of water do not heat up or slow down fast - you need hours. Thus you can supply a grid from nuclear, but you can't counterbalance nuclear and renewables. Therefore the common vision is that we move from a largely coal base to a mixed natural gas/renewable base, and then to a renewable/battery base. So natural gas is seen as a bridge to an all renewable future.

northwest 13y ago

And it still smells pretty awful for my immediate environment in the short term.

krugmanlol 13y ago
Natural gas is odorless. The odor is added.

mzr 13y ago

Come to the Barnett Shale, and see how it isn't good, either. You can't drink it, and we're losing our aquifers to contamination from drilling, fracking, and the waste water injection wells.

IlPeach 13y ago
not the first time I read about this. should be reason enough to avoid it.

peterpathname 13y ago

I call BS. for rich developed nations, gas is an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from the genuine renewable and sustainable energy alternatives which are already taking shape around us. there is an argument about using gas in the developing world (where they need cheap energy fast), but wealthy nations should be leapfrogging into the same renewable energy solutions that will inevitably dominate our futures, rather than 'investing' in new gas plants with their long 30-40 year lifespan.

hannibal5 13y ago
It's BS. To limit global warming to 2°C we would need to leave 80% of already discovered hydrocarbon resources unused. This is same as producing CO2 at current level next 18 years and then stopping completely forever. We are already warmed +0.8°C and effects have been worse than expected. To be realistic, there is no signs that we are even trying to reduce global CO2 emissions, we are just trying to slow down the increase. There is no sign in stock markets that all those hydrocarbons will be left into the ground. From developed nations only Germany is trying to leapfrog, but it might fail due to economic/political reasons when the cost becomes clear to voters (well see). According to FAO, meat production causes 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That's more than traffic. If we would be serious, we would have to solve that ASAP. Nobody is even thinking doing that. All actions in democratic countries are result of two forces: what people feel comfortable giving up and how much people fear global warming. People are not comfortable giving up anything even lightly significant even if they live in rich countries. There is not enough investments and technology is not advancing at the pace we would need to have to live comfortable life and saving the environment. If you have kids, take them diving to see coral reefs. It's last time to see. http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effect-of-ocean-acidification-on-corals http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidifica...

droithomme 13y ago

The article mentions natural gas is mostly methane (CH4). Here is the combustion reaction for burning methane: CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O Note right side of equation. The "climate scientists" cited in the referenced article have confusion on this issue, as they contrast the effects of methane releases to those of CO2. It's interesting to contemplate what has to occur for someone to adopt the title "scientist" and leading authority in a subject while remaining confused about freshman highschool chemistry. Burning natural gas may release some incidental uncombusted methane, but the major gaseous combustion product is clearly CO2. An unlearned person reading these articles would not know that from the way methane emissions are presented as the relevant issue. It's also interesting to see that methane has now been rehabilitated in some minds into a friendly and relatively clean emission after years of hysteria regarding the impending doom that is coming from cow flatulence; statements such as "A significant portion of [global greenhouse gas] emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide." (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/03/cow-flatulence.html http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/03/..., http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow...)

tspike 13y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The scientists explicitly mention the fact that burning methane produces CO2: > If a methane molecule is burned, it produces one CO2 molecule. > Methane produces about 2 times as much energy as does coal for the same CO2. Perhaps the title on HN is a bad one, but the scientists are specifically arguing against the assertion that natural gas is even worse for the environment than coal because a large amount of it leaks into the atmosphere before it ever even has the chance to burn.
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
You should read the article. The issue is that CH4 is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, because of how strongly it absorbs IR [0]. Even small methane leaks are significant. This is counterbalanced by methane * Being less carbon-rich [than coal] -- looking at the right side of your equation, about half the energy comes from fusing hydrogen (H-O) as opposed to carbon (C=O) [1] * Allowing more efficient combustion (Muller says 60% vs. 44%) You cannot come to any conclusion here without doing the math! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Value... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_formation_(data_table) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fo...