I can't find the MIT study where they picked an 80-year time frame to average the effects of methane on the troposphere and stratosphere - and googling now finds so many MIT studies on methane I can't find the one.
Anyway, it handed me the figure that if methane power generation hits 4% leakage, the overall industry is doing as much climate damage as coal. Half from CO2, the 4% methane is as bad as the other half. Of course, the industry claims 0.25% leakage. Studies of their plumes proved that at best an exaggeration, and some have figured closer to 2.5% than 0.25%.
No idea, but if you assumed linearity, that the total "Percent as bad as coal" figure was:
50% + (2.5/4)(50%) = 81% as bad as coal, for the climate, if not for your asthma.
It's still a switch worth making, I'd take 19% less warming, plus way cleaner air(!)
But may fail investment relative to investing in renewables.
I think methane leakage is an exaggerated problem. The gas industry has a strong profit motive to keep it as small as possible. And the trend is clearly downward.
The “plumes” that you are referring to is not accidental methane leakage in distribution. They are deliberate gas venting at the drill site.
Methane leakage is also often confused with deliberate gas venting at the well by oil drilling. Shale drillers are typically looking for either oil or gas. The distribution infrastructure and current price is key to which they want.
Basically, the drillers are looking for shale oil, but shale gas comes along with it. Since oil can be easily transported on trucks, they can recover the oil and sell it. Since gas requires pipelines that do not go to all the shale oil fields, then they have no choice but to deliberately release it into the atmosphere.
The best way to deal with that is to construct gas pipelines to the shale oil fields. This would be a win for both the environment and the economy. Unfortunately, there is strong political resistance from Greens who claim to be concerned about methane leakage.
As for renewables, I am very skeptical that wind and solar can reduce coal at scale. Yes, they can generate electricity, but it is typically in addition to electricity produced from coal, not instead of electricity produced from coal.
I'm very optimistic about the future of solar and batteries but I'm also pro combined cycle gas power plants as bridging technology. Not optimistic about nuclear (doesn't mean I'm anti nuclear).
I'm also pro pushing more gas turbines for shipping. Full disclosure my research will benefit from this trend.
Thanks for the comment. I agree that solar and utility-scale batteries will decrease in cost and increase in market share. I am very skeptical that they will be able to drastically reduce carbon emissions in many regions. I think that fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro will do the heavy lifting for the world’s energy system for decades to come. Replacing coal with natural gas, however, is very achievable, particularly in North America.
Last I checked solar grows roughly 22% per year. That's a doubling every ~3.2 years. Currently solar electricity provides 2.5% of the world's ENERGY (not electricity).
So by 2035 we can expect solar to provide ~20% of all energy. By 2045 we can expect more than 100% of current energy demand.
I also think global energy demand will not rise much since electrification of road transportation and low temperature heat (<200 degrees Celsius) is a big source of efficiency.
You are mistaken about the net carbon emissions tax. If, as you say CC gas is the lowest cist akternatve ti coal, it will still be the least cost with a net CO2 emissions tax and coal will be in effect taxed out of the energy stream. But the tax will also encourage nuclear, geothermal, and CCS. It does not make any sense to try to foresee which will become least cost alternative will be developed.
As I mentioned in a previous article, I am opposed to a carbon tax because it increases the cost of energy. The goal should be decreasing the cost of energy without subsidies. Carbon taxes do the opposite. Plus a carbon tax does not actually do anything except provide incentives. You still have to pay for the new energy sources in addition to paying for the taxes.
A carbon tax:
Makes energy more expensive (so it violates what should be the primary goal of energy policy)
Does not deal with most of the negative side effects of energy
Amount will be set by politics, not science
Is Regressive
Is unlikely to be implemented
Disincentivizes natural gas
(in some cases) Will tax the wrong energy producers.
A carbon tax would obviously increase the cost of natural gas so it would delay the transition away from coal and make the transition more expensive.
I am not trying to foresee future energy cost. My proposal takes effect in 5 years or less, so there is no need to factor in future technological innovation. The costs are fairly simple to calculate, except that I am not sure about whether additional pipelines will be needed to some new gas plants. My guess is that this is only an issue in a few areas. My estimate of $148 billion is probably on the upper end. Most likely, some of the old steam turbines in coal plants can be reused, and so can almost all the other facilities within a coal plant. No other energy source can do that.
There is no way that a blend of nuclear, geothermal and CCS can scale up quickly enough to phase out coal-fired plants in only 5 years. Natural gas is the only possible substitute at scale for the foreseeable future based on cost and speed of implementation. And solar plus wind are totally incapable of replacing coal without vast expenditures on utility-scale batteries.
I can't find the MIT study where they picked an 80-year time frame to average the effects of methane on the troposphere and stratosphere - and googling now finds so many MIT studies on methane I can't find the one.
Anyway, it handed me the figure that if methane power generation hits 4% leakage, the overall industry is doing as much climate damage as coal. Half from CO2, the 4% methane is as bad as the other half. Of course, the industry claims 0.25% leakage. Studies of their plumes proved that at best an exaggeration, and some have figured closer to 2.5% than 0.25%.
No idea, but if you assumed linearity, that the total "Percent as bad as coal" figure was:
50% + (2.5/4)(50%) = 81% as bad as coal, for the climate, if not for your asthma.
It's still a switch worth making, I'd take 19% less warming, plus way cleaner air(!)
But may fail investment relative to investing in renewables.
Thanks for the comment.
I think methane leakage is an exaggerated problem. The gas industry has a strong profit motive to keep it as small as possible. And the trend is clearly downward.
The “plumes” that you are referring to is not accidental methane leakage in distribution. They are deliberate gas venting at the drill site.
Methane leakage is also often confused with deliberate gas venting at the well by oil drilling. Shale drillers are typically looking for either oil or gas. The distribution infrastructure and current price is key to which they want.
Basically, the drillers are looking for shale oil, but shale gas comes along with it. Since oil can be easily transported on trucks, they can recover the oil and sell it. Since gas requires pipelines that do not go to all the shale oil fields, then they have no choice but to deliberately release it into the atmosphere.
The best way to deal with that is to construct gas pipelines to the shale oil fields. This would be a win for both the environment and the economy. Unfortunately, there is strong political resistance from Greens who claim to be concerned about methane leakage.
As for renewables, I am very skeptical that wind and solar can reduce coal at scale. Yes, they can generate electricity, but it is typically in addition to electricity produced from coal, not instead of electricity produced from coal.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-us
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-asian
I'm very optimistic about the future of solar and batteries but I'm also pro combined cycle gas power plants as bridging technology. Not optimistic about nuclear (doesn't mean I'm anti nuclear).
I'm also pro pushing more gas turbines for shipping. Full disclosure my research will benefit from this trend.
Thanks for the comment. I agree that solar and utility-scale batteries will decrease in cost and increase in market share. I am very skeptical that they will be able to drastically reduce carbon emissions in many regions. I think that fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro will do the heavy lifting for the world’s energy system for decades to come. Replacing coal with natural gas, however, is very achievable, particularly in North America.
Last I checked solar grows roughly 22% per year. That's a doubling every ~3.2 years. Currently solar electricity provides 2.5% of the world's ENERGY (not electricity).
So by 2035 we can expect solar to provide ~20% of all energy. By 2045 we can expect more than 100% of current energy demand.
I also think global energy demand will not rise much since electrification of road transportation and low temperature heat (<200 degrees Celsius) is a big source of efficiency.
All hail. THE EMPIRE OF THE SUN.
I absolutely guarantee that solar power will be nowhere near 100% of current energy demand in 2045.
And global energy demand will grow significantly in the coming decades (unless the world’s economy collapses).
You are mistaken about the net carbon emissions tax. If, as you say CC gas is the lowest cist akternatve ti coal, it will still be the least cost with a net CO2 emissions tax and coal will be in effect taxed out of the energy stream. But the tax will also encourage nuclear, geothermal, and CCS. It does not make any sense to try to foresee which will become least cost alternative will be developed.
As I mentioned in a previous article, I am opposed to a carbon tax because it increases the cost of energy. The goal should be decreasing the cost of energy without subsidies. Carbon taxes do the opposite. Plus a carbon tax does not actually do anything except provide incentives. You still have to pay for the new energy sources in addition to paying for the taxes.
A carbon tax:
Makes energy more expensive (so it violates what should be the primary goal of energy policy)
Does not deal with most of the negative side effects of energy
Amount will be set by politics, not science
Is Regressive
Is unlikely to be implemented
Disincentivizes natural gas
(in some cases) Will tax the wrong energy producers.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-a-carbon-tax-will-not-work
A carbon tax would obviously increase the cost of natural gas so it would delay the transition away from coal and make the transition more expensive.
I am not trying to foresee future energy cost. My proposal takes effect in 5 years or less, so there is no need to factor in future technological innovation. The costs are fairly simple to calculate, except that I am not sure about whether additional pipelines will be needed to some new gas plants. My guess is that this is only an issue in a few areas. My estimate of $148 billion is probably on the upper end. Most likely, some of the old steam turbines in coal plants can be reused, and so can almost all the other facilities within a coal plant. No other energy source can do that.
There is no way that a blend of nuclear, geothermal and CCS can scale up quickly enough to phase out coal-fired plants in only 5 years. Natural gas is the only possible substitute at scale for the foreseeable future based on cost and speed of implementation. And solar plus wind are totally incapable of replacing coal without vast expenditures on utility-scale batteries.
Let’s just go do it.