5 ms·
You have clearly misunderstood. I try to simplify: Methane is 4 H per 1 C, oil is approx. 2 H per 1 C. Burning the H-part produces just water, which is harmless
by sampo 13y ago
You have clearly misunderstood. I try to simplify: Methane is 4 H per 1 C, oil is approx. 2 H per 1 C. Burning the H-part produces just water, which is harmless. The bottom line is that burning methane gives only half the CO2 emissions, compared to burning oil, per energy produced.
So in theory, burning methane to produce energy, would give only half the greenhouse gas emissions, compared to burning oil.
But, methane is 25 to 72 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 [1], so even relatively small leakages during the production + transport + use of methane might be enough to spoil the advantage.
If methane has 25x larger global warming potential than CO2, then – even though methane is 2x more energy efficient – a mere 4% leakage would be enough the bring methane back to the level of CO2.
(I have no idea what are the typical leakage amounts in methane production, transport and use.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_p...
- DannoHung 13y agoWater vapor isn't harmless. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
- Retric 13y agoAre you joking, rain keeps water vapor in balance but long term CO2 sticks around.
- sampo 13y agoWell, true, but the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by the balance of (i) water vapor condensing back to liquid water (e.g. rain), and (ii) water evaporating to atmosphere from oceans, lakes, soils and ecosystems. This balance is mostly determined by the temperature. So you can't really add much water to the atmosphere by only emitting water vapor by e.g. burning gas, or even boiling huge amounts of water, because the excess water vapor will just condense back to liquid water. Also if we imagine some huge industrial process that dries the air, removes water vapor from the air, this wouldn't really decrease the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, because the drier air would just suck up the water back when it next comes into contact with a water body, damp soil or vegetation.
- DannoHung 13y ago> Also if we imagine some huge industrial process that dries the air, removes water vapor from the air, this wouldn't really decrease the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, because the drier air would just suck up the water back when it next comes into contact with a water body, damp soil or vegetation. That's true on the macroest of macro scales, but in local climates, water vapor doesn't maintain a steady state. Otherwise every climate would be relatively green. In any case, if it's really so much better to capture methane and burn it for fuel than let it escape, then we should be forcing natural gas companies to figure out how to capture melting methane clathrates instead of taking them out of ground wells where they're relatively stable.