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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).