Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems

[Divernan]

Source: New York Times

Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: April 11, 2011


Natural gas, with its reputation as a linchpin in the effort to wean the nation off dirtier fossil fuels and reduce global warming, may not be as clean over all as its proponents say.

Even as natural gas production in the United States increases and Washington gives it a warm embrace as a crucial component of America’s energy future, two coming studies try to poke holes in the clean-and-green reputation of natural gas. They suggest that the rush to develop the nation’s vast, unconventional sources of natural gas is logistically impractical and likely to do more to heat up the planet than mining and burning coal.

The problem, the studies suggest, is that planet-warming 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. This offsets natural gas’s most important advantage as an energy source: it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels and releases lower carbon dioxide emissions.

“The old dogma of natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions gets stated over and over without qualification,” said Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University and the lead author of one of the studies. Mr. Howarth said his analysis, which looked specifically at methane leakage rates in unconventional shale gas development, was among the first of its kind and that much more research was needed."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/business/energy-environment/12gas.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

---

The New York Times continues its excellent coverage of the dangers to the environment/air and water quality of the massive use of hydraulic fracturing/"fracking" by the oil and gas industry. The Times article refers to the investigative journalism report by Pro Publica, published this January, which notes that the EPA recently doubled its estimates for the amount of methane which is vented at wellheads or lost through pipe fittings in natural gas distribution lines.
http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doubt
"Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated"

[Divernan]

1. Good to see investigative journalism reporting on dangers of fracking

From the Pro Publica report cited in OP

Billions of cubic feet of climate-changing greenhouse gases—roughly the equivalent of the annual emissions from 35 million automobiles—seep from loose pipe valves or are vented intentionally from gas production facilities into the atmosphere each year, according to the EPA. Gas drilling emissions alone account for at least one-fifth of human-caused methane in the world’s atmosphere, the World Bank estimates, and as more natural gas is drilled, the EPA expects these emissions to increase dramatically.

When scientists evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources over their full lifecycle and incorporate the methane emitted during production, the advantage of natural gas holds true only when it is burned in more modern and efficient plants.

But roughly half of the 1,600 gas-fired power plants in the United States operate at the lowest end of the efficiency spectrum. And even before the EPA sharply revised its data, these plants were only 32 percent cleaner than coal, according to a lifecycle analysis by Paulina Jaramillo, an energy expert and associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

Now that the EPA has doubled its emissions estimates, the advantages are slimmer still. Based on the new numbers, the median gas-powered plant in the United States is just 40 percent cleaner than coal, according to calculations ProPublica made based on Jaramillo’s formulas. Those 800 inefficient plants offer only a 25 percent improvement.

[Overseas]

2. Here is a link to "Gasland" about hydraulic fracturing

about what "fracking" is:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

[Divernan]

5. Carnegie Library/Pittsburgh showing Gasland 7 p.m., 4/21

I'm looking forward to seeing it - for those who haven't heard of it, this film won Best Documentary at Sundance, and was nominated for an Oscar.

My longtime, fairly conservative plumber, who has been pretty much apolitical for over 20 years, is foaming at the mouth about the fracking process, chemicals & fumes and the long term, devastating damage it will cause in Pennsylvania. He knows people who monitor fracking and they tell him the most debilitating, if not fatal, effects on health will take 10 to 15 years to evidence themselves. And also, that the majority of the gas is removed from the wells in the first 3 or 4 years, and then the drillers walk away, leaving the communities to clean up after them - which communities cannot afford to do.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. It's not just the freakin' "fracking"

The energy hunters are attacking this state from top to bottom. West Virginia has both coal and "shale gas". The Frick & Frack Attack has been going on here for years. Wild Plunderful West Virginia is quickly turning into ground zero. Zero tolerance for anything that stands in the way of the freakin' fracking. Between the mountain top removers and the freakin' frackers visions of, the new "Almost Heaven"...looks like flat as freakin' hell, without a freakin' water well.

[Karenina]

4. Your post is a work of art!

:loveya::hi:

[Hubert Flottz]

6. They are freakin' frackin' the American dream...

our dream to hand off a better world and a better life, to our children and to our children's children.