
Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates - digital55
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05517-y
======
24gttghh
In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you
would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much
worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]) of all methods of
electricity production.

But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over
a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still
looking at catastrophic global warming.[2][3]

[0][https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11)

[1][https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-
more-...](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-
than-nuclear-power/)

[2][https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fu...](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas)

[3][https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fu...](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas)

~~~
jacquesm
In a five year period Methane traps ~100 times more energy than the equivalent
quantity of CO2, so not burning Methane because it escapes is far worse than
burning it!

[http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-
ca...](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-
dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/)

~~~
lancewiggs
The comparative effect between CO2 and methane varies as we vary the
timeframe. One thing we do know - reducing methane will have an immediate
impact, whereas reducing CO2 will have a lasting impact.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8)

~~~
scarmig
Methane breaks down into CO2 and water, so we get the carbon dioxide
regardless.

~~~
hcknwscommenter
There are many embedded assumptions in your statement that do not hold up to
scrutiny. Methane "breaks down" to CO2 and water? This is difficult to parse.
I do not think that methane generally breaks down to much of anything at
standard temperature and pressure. Do you mean the combustion of methane
produces CO2 and water? The latter is true, but OP's point is that this
combustion produces A LOT less CO2 as compared to the equivalent (in BTUs)
amount of coal.

~~~
arnoooooo
According to Wikipedia, in the troposphere and stratosphere, Methane reacts
with hydroxyl radicals to give CO2 and H2O.

------
avip
To anyone reading "“tremendous opportunity” to reduce methane emissions by
developing systems to quickly detect malfunctions at oil and gas facilities"
and running to the garage to connect an RPI to an off-the-shelf 5$ sensor and
submit her YC2019 application: The tech is there. It's been there for years.
Everything is in place, this is a political/emission tax/EPA/incentive issue
per-se.

~~~
rotexo
I was just thinking about this in reference to organizations like the
Citizen's Climate Lobby. The real technology that needs to be developed here
is a politically feasible way to levy taxes on known carbon emitters.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Run for office or support candidates who align with preventing/mitigating
climate change. It is the only way. All of the tech in the world is useless if
you can't enforce its use.

------
Alex3917
Here is a TED talk my dad just gave about a satellite they're building to
track down the source of these methane leaks and fix the issue:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_meth...](https://www.ted.com/talks/fred_krupp_what_if_we_tracked_methane_from_space_and_hit_the_brakes_on_climate_change)

~~~
wollstonecraft
What is the detection limit?

------
teachrdan
For folks who didn't read the article, the real problem is that methane is
much more efficient a greenhouse gas at trapping heat compared to CO2: by some
estimates, 86 TIMES more potent.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-
gree...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-
gas-is-methane/)

------
ta1234567890
This is so sad. Any ideas on how stuff like this could realistically be fixed?
Are there any incentives that could be put in place? What would be the
incentive for the people that have that power to make those changes?

~~~
sremani
There is already incentive for the private operators to not lose these gases
during production or transmission as it cuts into their margins. This is like
leaving money on the table.

~~~
ceejayoz
That's not necessarily true, though, if capturing it costs more than just
letting it leak.

~~~
sremani
I am not saying there are really no bad or incompetent actors.. but it costs
the industry $2 billion per year because of these loses.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/climate/methane-
leaks.htm...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/climate/methane-leaks.html)

~~~
ceejayoz
And if they could fix that for $1B/year, they'd do so.

Instead, you can find industry groups quoted in that article complaining about
the study.

~~~
mirimir
The problem is that, given the greenhouse forcing, those leaks will arguably
cost society much more than a few $billion per year. It's just that the gas
industry isn't legally responsible for that. And that's why they don't want to
stop the leaks.

------
Netcob
Well the regular government really dropped the ball there, fortunately the
dwarf government was more vigilant.

------
tejtm
Satellite image of burning gas as a "waste product" from five years ago. Note
there are no large cities of people there.

[http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-2269517-17...](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-2269517-17381F79000005DC-867_964x643.jpg)

~~~
driverdan
I downvoted you for linking to something from the Daily Mail rag. Nothing they
publish is reliable or trustworthy.

~~~
tejtm
Sorry mate, first image link in a DDG search nothing profound, Not even
familiar with who they are, granted I was pretty sure they they did not take
the snap. I will try to be mote discerning next time (the thought had crossed
my mind to figure out whence it came)

------
basicplus2
I wonder how this fits into the 21% of the total emissions... being 33%
(fossil fuels) of the 64% (human induced sources)

[https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-
emissio...](https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions)

------
_rpd
tl;dr:

> methane emissions in 2015 were about 60% greater than estimates from the
> EPA’s greenhouse gas inventory: a 2.3% leakage rate compared to the 1.4%
> estimate from the EPA. “Instead of coming from the well to the pipeline, the
> gas is escaping through vents or other openings in the system, and it adds
> up to a lot of emissions,” says Alvarez.

------
binarymax
An unfortunate title (does nature do click bait now?). Why use the term dwarf
instead of quoting the numeric value (or say "more than double")?

~~~
hnburnsy
Shouldn't the correct title be "New methane leak estimate dwarfs government
estimates"

From the article...

"They then extrapolated the figures to estimate methane leaks at the national
level."

------
masteranza
Not saying we shouldn't pay attention when some estimates are wrong, but
perhaps it's not the best idea to take an alarmist's attitude:
[https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/06/hansens-testimony-30th-
an...](https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/06/hansens-testimony-30th-
anniversary.html#more)

~~~
guelo
That blog is much more propagandist than anything James Hansen ever did.

~~~
masteranza
So which facts did he get wrong exactly? Sure, it may looks so, but so far
everything I've read on this blog is correct.

~~~
mjw1007
If you're thinking about the scenario A/B/C stuff, he's ignoring the effects
of the drop in atmospheric CFCs.

