Shale gas not a path to non-warming future

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Jul 29, 2013.

  1. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26 / 0 / -0
    From one of the engineers instrumental in inventing fracking techniques writing in today's NYT's:

    "ITHACA, N.Y. — MANY concerned about climate change, including President Obama, have embraced hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. In his recent climate speech, the president went so far as to lump gas with renewables as “clean energy.”

    As a longtime oil and gas engineer who helped develop shale fracking techniques for the Energy Department, I can assure you that this gas is not “clean.” Because of leaks of methane, the main component of natural gas, the gas extracted from shale deposits is not a “bridge” to a renewable energy future — it’s a gangplank to more warming and away from clean energy investments.

    Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it doesn’t last nearly as long in the atmosphere. Still, over a 20-year period, one pound of it traps as much heat as at least 72 pounds of carbon dioxide. Its potency declines, but even after a century, it is at least 25 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. When burned, natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, but methane leakage eviscerates this advantage because of its heat-trapping power.

    And methane is leaking, though there is significant uncertainty over the rate. But recent measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at gas and oil fields in California, Colorado and Utah found leakage rates of 2.3 percent to 17 percent of annual production, in the range my colleagues at Cornell and I predicted some years ago. This is the gas that is released into the atmosphere unburned as part of the hydraulic fracturing process, and also from pipelines, compressors and processing units. Those findings raise questions about what is happening elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued new rules to reduce these emissions, but the rules don’t take effect until 2015, and apply only to new wells.

    A 2011 study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research concluded that unless leaks can be kept below 2 percent, gas lacks any climate advantage over coal. And a study released this May by Climate Central, a group of scientists and journalists studying climate change, concluded that the 50 percent climate advantage of natural gas over coal is unlikely to be achieved over the next three to four decades. Unfortunately, we don’t have that long to address climate change — the next two decades are crucial...."​

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/gangplank-to-a-warm-future.html?ref=opinion
  2. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,899
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +917 / 41 / -9
    We could go back to heating our hovels by burning our poop, the Luddites of the environmental movement would still complain about the smoke.
  3. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,836
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +108 / 0 / -0
    Funny stuff.

    Not as funny as the fake crusade Row is on, but funny nonetheless.
  4. Tasselhoff
    Online

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +111 / 0 / -0
    Pretty sure cows are a.major source of methane jn the atmospere. Maybe liberals should loom at doing away with cows.
  5. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +114 / 13 / -7
    There are two problems with this report.

    a. We had a thread a while ago that said engineers aren't scientists.
    b. The NY Times can't be trusted for anything.
  6. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26 / 0 / -0
    The engineer in question helped develop fracking technology and he is in fact expert in this area of science. The NYT's is by far the best newspaper in the US and perhaps the world. The OP article is however on it's opinion page though written by an expert in the field.
  7. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,836
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +108 / 0 / -0
    His posts get more funny by the second. Best paper in the world. Awesome.
    His engineers are scientists too van. Your engineers are just plain ol' engineers.
  8. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,106
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +656 / 22 / -4
    You think he knows what the components of the secret cocktail they shoot in the ground is? Of course, thanks to Dickey boy, it would be illegal for him to tell us.
  9. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +260 / 18 / -3
    If the earth wants to get warm or the earth wants to get cold, it will. Man can't do a thing to stop it. It is what it is, and will be what it will be.
  10. g8tr80
    Online

    g8tr80 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +432 / 45 / -14
    The Earth has been around for billions fo years, but the next 20 are the most crucial EVER.

    You know what? Pay me enough and I'll tell you I wear women's panties.
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,832
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,851 / 66 / -30
    Careful, I'm sure the Dems are looking into a way to tax flatulence and excrement from farm animals.
  12. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26 / 0 / -0
    The next 20 years aren't crucial to the sun or the sand in my back yard, but they sure as hell are the most crucial to humans and most other living organisms.

    Now, why would we want you tell us you wear women's panties, even for free?
  13. g8tr80
    Online

    g8tr80 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +432 / 45 / -14
    You wouldn't big boy. It'll cost you. I'm not cheap. But I have been known to embarrass myself for a few bucks. Usually after drinking. Like Saturday.
  14. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +260 / 18 / -3
    The next 10 ,20 ,30 years or whatever, has been touted by scientists and others for hundreds of years. A hundred years from now, the next 20 years will be the most important. It never stops.
  15. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26 / 0 / -0
    It's freakin' Monday!
  16. ThePlayer
    Offline

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,311
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +915 / 131 / -139
    Correct...hard to believe, but they send out more dung in a hour than Row does each month.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,832
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,851 / 66 / -30
    :laugh:

    Rep.
  18. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,894
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,669 / 82 / -24
    Two things...

    1. Gas is still a lot cleaner than coal in terms of particulate pollutants and mercury. Adverse health and environment impacts from these pollutants are far better understood than climate change.
    2. Maybe with focus, they can try to capture and harness the methane that is released. That is what some dairy farms are doing.
  19. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +114 / 13 / -7
    I actually agree with this. Pulling your chain.

    I feel sorry for the trees that gave their life to produce that rag. I wouldn't wipe my --- with the NYT. It's not even journalism. More like vomitted words.
  20. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26 / 0 / -0
    Agree with 1 and that's enough to not give up on 2. The number of deaths per year from burning coal is in the hundreds of thousands worldwide annually (maybe 13,000 in the US).

Share This Page