Natural Gas not so great

[RWebb]

I was going to say "not so hot" but...

methane, the chief component of natural gas, is escaping into the atmosphere in far larger quantities than previously thought, with as much as 7.9 percent of it puffing out from shale gas wells, intentionally vented or flared, or seeping from loose pipe fittings along gas distribution lines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/business/energy-environment/12gas.html?_r=1&hp

[Flieger]

And cows- don't forget cows. But it's "organic".

Such disgusting things when you actually see them from somewhere closer than the seat of a car.

[nynor]

and the rest, a huge amount, is termite (among other insects) farts.

[legion]

[RWebb]

so... are we back to nukes yet?

[masraum]

My wife could have told you that methane was a menace.

[Hugh R]

If you don't like Nukes, what do you like? Spell out your national energy policy.

[aways]

Coal no good... too much radon, too "dirty"
Nat gas no good... methane.... ohhh!
Oil no good.... oil spill risk; + rewarding evil Co's like BP & Exxon
No nukes! No nukes! Evil radiation
Windmills & solar panels: Not in MY neighborhood!
Hydroelectric... destruction of the river ecosystem...

In other words, the only solution that will "save the planet" is for the human race to "go Jonestown" and cease to exist... be green!

[Joe Bob]

Never trust a fart.............

[motion]

Originally Posted by legion

That pic never disappoints. Seriously, where TFFFFF do some of you people come from? For God's sake, get a life already!!!

[sammyg2]

[jyl]

Seems reasonable that the NG industry should reduce the amount of gas being intentionally/unintentionally dumped in the atmosphere.

NG systems produce appx 17% of the methane being introduced into the atmosphere, in the US. In total, energy-related sources account for about 37%. Significantly more than all the "digestive" methane sources combined.

Sources and Emissions | Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

I realize a boring table of numbers is not as entertaining as a string of cartoons, but it isn't as stupid either.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by jyl

Seems reasonable that the NG industry should reduce the amount of gas being intentionally/unintentionally dumped in the atmosphere.

NG systems produce appx 17% of the methane being introduced into the atmosphere, in the US. In total, energy-related sources account for about 37%. Significantly more than all the "digestive" methane sources combined.

Sources and Emissions | Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

I realize a boring table of numbers is not as entertaining as a string of cartoons, but it isn't as stupid either.

huh.... i am not seeing what you are seeing, apparently. the top two sources on that chart are from digestive sources, along with the fifth and the eighth.

[pwd72s]

Damn! I'm a sinner again! We went with a natural gas furnace after our oil furnace caught fire.

During the weeks we had no furnace? The wood stove kept us warm.

Man, I feel sooo guilty. I'm sure we did a lot of damage, but amazingly, the planet is still here.

[nynor]

yup. you are going straight to hell for that one. no doubt about it.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by nynor

huh.... i am not seeing what you are seeing, apparently. the top two sources on that chart are from digestive sources, along with the fifth and the eighth.

Total up the energy-related numbers, you'll see.

Also, worth distinguishing between the "digestive sources" that obviously can't be controlled (you, me, cows in pasture) and those that can (landfills #2 can have methane recovery systems, so can manure systems from industrial farming #5.

My point is, thinking that the bulk of US methane gas generation is natural and unavoidable is simply wrong, no matter how many cartoons are posted.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by jyl

Total up the energy-related numbers, you'll see.

Also, worth distinguishing between the "digestive sources" that obviously can't be controlled (you, me, cows in pasture) and those that can (landfills #2 can have methane recovery systems, so can manure systems from industrial farming #5.

My point is, thinking that the bulk of US methane gas generation is natural and unavoidable is simply wrong, no matter how many cartoons are posted.

backpedaling.

i come up with about 210 for 2008, which isn't very close to equaling the top two.

"Termites. Global emissions of methane due to termites are estimated to be between 2 and 22 Tg per year, making them the second largest natural source of methane emissions. Methane is produced in termites as part of their normal digestive process, and the amount generated varies among different species. Ultimately, emissions from termites depend largely on the population of these insects, which can also vary significantly among different regions of the world. "

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by jyl

Seems reasonable that the NG industry should reduce the amount of gas being intentionally/unintentionally dumped in the atmosphere.

NG systems produce appx 17% of the methane being introduced into the atmosphere, in the US. In total, energy-related sources account for about 37%. Significantly more than all the "digestive" methane sources combined.

Sources and Emissions | Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

I realize a boring table of numbers is not as entertaining as a string of cartoons, but it isn't as stupid either.

well put

I'm sure we will see the NG industry work on sealing leaks in pipelines. I also hope they can do something about leaks from gas recovery operations.

NG companies are highly motivated right now b/c they know that it will take a while to develop solar, it takes a while to approve & site nuke plants (likely a LOT longer nowadays) and they know that we know that coal is dirty. They see a big opportunity for them to be a transitional fuel (over the next few decades) and don't want to miss it...

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by nynor

...

"Termites. Global emissions of methane due to termites are estimated to be between 2 and 22 Tg per year, making them the second largest natural source of methane emissions. ...

correct - increases in termite populations are largely driven by humans tho -- clear cutting and deforestation create a LOT more habitat for them, esp. in Brazil and other areas near the equator

[jyl]

Originally Posted by nynor

backpedaling.

i come up with about 210 for 2008, which isn't very close to equaling the top two.

Yeah, I didn't initially include landfills as "digestive". I'm not sure they really qualify, frankly.

Anyway, do you disagree that industrial sources of methane, to which we can apply methane controls, comprise about 50% of the total in that table? NG, coal, manure, petrol, wastewater, etc. And do you agree that whether landfills are "digestive" or not, we do know how to capture some of the methane from landfills, which is another 22%? If some 70% of methane gas sources in the US is from man-made/operated systems and thus potentially addressable, why are you so fixated on termites?

Suppose all the termites in the world generate 22 Tg/yr globally. That's about 4% of the 570 Tg from man-made sources in the US. Its somewhere down around #8 on the list, similar to wastewater treatment in just the US.

Why are you thinking termites are a "huge amount" of global methane gas?