

Two Climate Analysts Fault Gas Leaks, but Not as a Big Warming Threat - Gravityloss
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/two-climate-analysts-fault-gas-leaks-but-not-as-a-big-warming-threat/?_r=0

======
droithomme
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/...](http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2013/03/cow-
flatulence.html), [http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-
cow...](http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm))

~~~
sampo
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_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential)

~~~
DannoHung
Water vapor isn't harmless.
[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)

~~~
sampo
Well, 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
> 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.

------
joshuaellinger
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
The question is, bridge to what?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
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
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

      > 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_
Human population isn't a speculative market. (Yet)

------
mzr
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
not the first time I read about this. should be reason enough to avoid it.

------
peterpathname
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
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-
acidifica...](http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-
acidification/learn-act/effect-of-ocean-acidification-on-corals)

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

