7 ms·

When looking at these graphs, it pays to take a peek at who exactly is behind them. Modeling the costs and benefits of different forms of energy (especially env

When looking at these graphs, it pays to take a peek at who exactly is behind them. Modeling the costs and benefits of different forms of energy (especially environmental costs) is extremely easy to fudge. There are all sorts of assumptions you have to plug in to the model where you could covertly insert a policy bias. If the 'measurer' had an agenda, it wouldn't be hard for them to push the figures one way or another and still keep the model looking clean-ish from the outset. Bearing that in mind, it's worth pointing out that Exxon-Mobil is a major donor to the brookings institute - they're also part of the group ALEC that has been leading a massive attack on rooftop solar in the last 18 months. One of those attacks, for instance, has been to increase the price by slapping up to 35% tariffs on Chinese panels through (mostly false) accusations of dumping. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this were counted in the cost model, but subsidies were discounted. Another thing they've been doing recently is to try to 'greenwash' natural gas - to make it look like the cleaner alternative to coal to capitalize on the fracking boom. One of the assumptions I can virtually guarantee that they've made here, for instance, is that global warming effect of methane leakage (which is very significant) has been entirely discounted.

testrun 12y ago
Can you give a citation of how much methane leakage occurs?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Exactly how much? No, because unlike CO2, methane leakage is not being continuously measured. The fracking industry is not interested in measuring (duh) and the government is not forcing them to do so. Here's a study that tries to hazard an estimate in leakage from one source though: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-wells-pennsylvania-leaking-methane http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-...
ZeroGravitas 12y ago
One of the comments points to this response from the American Wind Energy Association: http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-wind-power-is-a-costeffective-way-to-reduce-emissions http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-wind-power-is-a-cos... They suggest his biggest distortions are using a) a historical figure for wind costs averaged over a decade even though it's got much cheaper over that time span and b) counting each year in that decade equally even though the amount of wind energy produced grew rapidly, c) using a figure from a press release for gas capacity rather than actual figures which would be 50% lower.
dozzie 12y ago
> [...] global warming effect of methane leakage [...] What? So we're sure all of sudden that human activity does actually have any visible impact on global warming? O_o
- seanflyon 12y ago
  The greenhouse effect is reasonably well understood and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm. The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming.
  - dozzie 12y ago
    > The greenhouse effect is reasonably well understood Except that it doesn't stand even basic scrutiny. 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation. > and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Water is even more potent, as I know. We don't emit much water to the atmosphere. And guess what? It's there, even more than CO_2 and methane combined together. And now quick question: how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change? And a hint: four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally, so people could even build inns on it. Now there's little ice on Baltic since mid-1800's. The climate changed drastically, was it industry's fault as well? 19th century industry was not developed enough yet to affect whole climate. > We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm. We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though. It is basic logic. Then, we do not know that greenhouse gasses cause the global warm. It is merely a hypothesis, and given the historical facts, it doesn't stand the Occam's razor principle. > The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming. No. The first thing we don't know is whether the hypothesis is actually true. It's unverifiable at best. There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect. We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place, all the argument about it revolves around some mental model, which nobody tell is correct.

testrun 12y ago

Can you give a citation of how much methane leakage occurs?

crdoconnor 12y ago
Exactly how much? No, because unlike CO2, methane leakage is not being continuously measured. The fracking industry is not interested in measuring (duh) and the government is not forcing them to do so. Here's a study that tries to hazard an estimate in leakage from one source though: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-wells-pennsylvania-leaking-methane http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-...

ZeroGravitas 12y ago

One of the comments points to this response from the American Wind Energy Association: http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-wind-power-is-a-costeffective-way-to-reduce-emissions http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-wind-power-is-a-cos... They suggest his biggest distortions are using a) a historical figure for wind costs averaged over a decade even though it's got much cheaper over that time span and b) counting each year in that decade equally even though the amount of wind energy produced grew rapidly, c) using a figure from a press release for gas capacity rather than actual figures which would be 50% lower.

dozzie 12y ago

> [...] global warming effect of methane leakage [...] What? So we're sure all of sudden that human activity does actually have any visible impact on global warming? O_o

seanflyon 12y ago
The greenhouse effect is reasonably well understood and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm. The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming.
- dozzie 12y ago
  > The greenhouse effect is reasonably well understood Except that it doesn't stand even basic scrutiny. 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation. > and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Water is even more potent, as I know. We don't emit much water to the atmosphere. And guess what? It's there, even more than CO_2 and methane combined together. And now quick question: how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change? And a hint: four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally, so people could even build inns on it. Now there's little ice on Baltic since mid-1800's. The climate changed drastically, was it industry's fault as well? 19th century industry was not developed enough yet to affect whole climate. > We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm. We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though. It is basic logic. Then, we do not know that greenhouse gasses cause the global warm. It is merely a hypothesis, and given the historical facts, it doesn't stand the Occam's razor principle. > The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming. No. The first thing we don't know is whether the hypothesis is actually true. It's unverifiable at best. There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect. We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place, all the argument about it revolves around some mental model, which nobody tell is correct.