Study Finds Methane Leaks Negate Benefits of Natural Gas-Powered Vehicles

Lasrick writes "Coral Davenport at the NY Times reports on a study to be published on Friday: '...a surprising new report...concludes that switching buses and trucks from traditional diesel fuel to natural gas could actually harm the planet's climate.' The report apparently documents that the leaks of methane that occur when drilling for natural gas more than make up for the climate change benefits of using natural gas as a transportation fuel. The report will be published Friday in the journal Science."

Comments

Manipulative headline

[HateBreeder]

The title implies that we should abandon gas as an alternative to diesel/petrol.

This is done by falsely implying that pollution due to methane leaks are an inherit part of the drilling process.

Instead, what we should really do is improve the drilling techniques to avoid/minimize leakage.

Re:Manipulative headline

[dbIII]

Very true - from the article:

The report’s authors conclude that the leaks can be reined in if oil and gas companies invest in technology to prevent methane from escaping into the atmosphere from gas wells and production facilities.

So more a message of "take care" instead of "abandon".

Re:Manipulative headline

[Chrisq]

I'd also like to know how much methane is leaked from oil (petroleum) drilling. You see them burning gas off in flares on the rig and refineries, but how much escapes. This is important because if we assume the alternative gives zero methane we may not see the true saving.

Re:Manipulative headline

[Mashiki]

I'm oddly getting rather pissed at the manipulative headlines, followed by the "well it's bad anyway, we should simply not do it at all" mentality that seems to be permeating from environmentalist, but also academia. Now maybe I'm off in the wild, but it sure seems like their only solution is the dark ages, with 1/3 or less the number of humans. Because "it's the only way."

Re:Manipulative headline

[ColdWetDog]

Part of what you say is true, however

Fracking occurs MILES below any aquifers, and the bore is very well sealed

is only potentially a true statement. Yes, if it's done right, the well bore is sealed and there is very little chance of contamination through the bore. However, cementing a well (the process that seals it) is not a trivial task (cf, the Macando disaster). It can be done correctly or not. The testing isn't easy and there is always going to be the temptation to just call it OK and go with the cement job.

If you don't have processes in place to supervise the drilling company (like, for example, Pennsylvania) you're going to end up with contaminated well bores. Most of the time a small leak won't do anything untoward - at least not right away. But left in place for a couple of years you can get significant migration of petrochemicals at very shallow depths.

Same issue with capping a well once it's finished producing - you can do it cheaply or you can do it correctly.

What needs to happen is for the 'non traditional' petrochemical producing states to create and administrative structure like the Texas Railroad Commission (dumb, historical name) with regulatory powers and significant legal teeth to ensure that things are done correctly. Seems like a no brainer - it's self funding and Texas has a long track record of creating a really high level of well control without undue fuss. That doesn't seem to have happened. I'm sure drilling companies would love to NOT be adequately supervised but we all know how well that works out.

Surprise

[Kokuyo]

Being able to populate the planet with 8 billion people that are all able to travel at greater than walking speed is bound to have an impact.

You can bet your booty that if we invented a way to power our vehicles with unicorn farts, in some way the release of so many unicorn farts would, yet again, harm the environment.

Basically it's not about having no impact but about distributing and minimizing it.

By the way, what exactly is the thought behind replacing one fossil fuel with another?

Re:Along those lines...

[Chrisq]

I'm expecting a report any time now regarding hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and leaks of hydrogen..

look no further, though it is largely positive compared to the alternatives of natural gas and petroleum.

Plus methanes half life is only about 10 years ...

[Viol8]

... in out atmosphere , whereas the CO2 released from burning it hangs around for hundreds if not thousands of years until its reabsorbed.

(And yes I am aware that the escaped methane ends up as CO2 after those 10 odd years , but its a tiny amount compared to the amount we release by burning).