Natural Gas Switch Would Not Greatly Slow Climate Change, Report Finds

Burning natural gas may emit significantly less carbon dioxide than coal, but a fifty percent switch from coal to natural gas would not stem the tide of climate change, according to the results of a new study

Using computer simulations, Tom Wigley, a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, found that a "partial shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change" for at least the next several decades, reports Science Daily. After that, there would be only a minimal slow down in the rise of global average temperatures. The report, "Coal to gas: The influence of methane leakage," appears in the journal Climatic Change Letters.

Wigley's predictions are dependent upon the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that is leaked as a result of natural gas production. If there was no leakage after a shift to gas, climate change would be accelerated through 2050. But if there were significant leaks, it could be as late as 2140 before any difference was seen, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Wigley explains that natural gas does produce less heat-trapping carbon dioxide when burned than coal. But coal emits other particles that also block sunlight and cool the planet. He tells Science Daily:

"Whatever the methane leakage rate, you can't get away from the additional warming that will occur initially because, by not burning coal, you're not having the cooling effect of sulfates and other particles. This particle effect is a double-edged sword because reducing them is a good thing in terms of lessening air pollution and acid rain. But the paradox is when we clean up these particles, it slows down efforts to reduce global warming."

Limiting methane leakage from natural gas production could also be a daunting task. The New York Times covered a report in April that suggested as much as 7.9 percent of the methane that is currently escaping into the atmosphere is "puffing out from shale gas wells, intentionally vented or flared, or seeping from loose pipe fittings along gas distribution lines."

Even after the warming caused by the reduction of sulfates and other earth-cooling particles is overcome, the decrease in rising global temperatures would not be significant.

Science Daily reports that even at only two percent methane leakage, a fifty percent shift to natural gas would only slow rising temperatures by 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. With current energy trends, global temperatures are predicted to rise 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

The U.S. Geological Survey reported in August that the Marcellus Shale region has around 84 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. This is far less than the 410 trillion cubic feet statistic released earlier this year by the federal Energy Information Administration.

Click here for ProPublica's list of America's 10 largest gas drillers.

--

Comments

[Jtt]

10:00 PM on 10/03/2011

Under the BEST conditions 3/4 to 4/5 of solar capacity will be natural gas. 2/3 to 1/2 wind will be natural gas. Under the BEST conditions. Thats not counting land use and environmental impact. Solar is still one tenth of one percent of world energy consumption.

Not that as much rooftop,parking lot, and roadway solar should be installed as possible.

But this is why many people support nuclear power strongly. The numbers for intermittent renewable simply dont work. Renewables combined with Nuclear are really the only doable alternative now that will significantly reduce emissions. And we are out of time. Irreversible ecosystem damage is occurring. ( http://diseaseclimate.blogspot.com/2011/10/big-problems-in-forests.html )

[AMERICABLESSGOD]

03:54 PM on 09/27/2011

Can someone explain to me how these scientists can predict temperatures for the next 40 - 90 years to the tenth of a degree, yet meteorologists change daily weather forecasts by the hour, with about 50% accuracy? I'm not a scientist, but this doesn't make that much sense to me.

What's even more disturbing is that while we ordinary people can't plan what to wear based on forecasts for tomorrow's weather, we are supposed to change our entire lifestyle and energy sources as well as pay through the nose for this change based on a 0.2 degree temperature increase forecast over the next 90 years.

Anyone?

[Genders]

03:32 AM on 10/03/2011

Averaging.

[Jtt]

10:03 PM on 10/03/2011

1. Climate is not weather.
2. There is actually very little variation in global climate over time.

Before you give a knee slappen, simplistic yokel answer you need to read the research.

[Genders]

12:20 AM on 09/26/2011

Rooftop pv solar, offshorew wind and wast bio char bio fuels beats n gas and all fossil and nukes.

http://solarcellcentral.com/companies_page.html first solar 2.5$ per Wp installed.
http://www.wikinvest.com/industry/Solar_Power

panels lasting longer and better than predicted http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf Great article about price of solar now 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents pwer KWH after the first 20 years and the loan is paid off.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/

Great chart of energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/

http://www.sunelec.com/ 75 cents per Wp.
cheapest new solar panels 1-2$/Wp http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

[energydem]

07:59 PM on 09/21/2011

There is a mountain of studies and academic papers noting the carbon benefits of natural gas vs. coal. Wrigely's paper is an outlier. The willingnes­s of environmen­talists, be they informed ones like the Sierra Club, or many of the wing nuts writing on these posts, to attach themselves to the one paper out of 100 like they are doing with this one, puts them in the same category as the right wing climate deniers who only cite the one and ignore the other 99. The accusations of murder, greed, corruption, etc., from these so called progressive, as well as the assumption that their ideological position is fact, also places them in the company of their counterparts on the far right. It does not contribute to the debate, it is ad hominem, stereotyping at its most bigoted, does not make me proud or hopeful for constructive resolution of these issues.

On the substantiv­e points, Wrigley essentiall­y says we won't get the full CO2 benefit from gas because in displacing coal, we lose coal's cooling benefits. Would you make the same argument about solar? If solar displaces coal, would you also lose coal's benefits? Until I see alot more serious analysis -- and I don't mean ridiculous entertainm­ent like Gasland masqueradi­ng as any kind of serious, credible analysis -- I am sticking with the other 99 on who say there will be substantial climate benefits from substituting gas for coal in power generation.

[Genders]

12:13 AM on 09/26/2011

And here you are again, commenting on fracking. what a fraud you are.

Fracking is 20% to 100 % more GHG than coal.

Methane contamination of drinking water
accompanying gas-well drilling and
hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborna, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
aCenter on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment, bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and
cBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/89472/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water.pdf
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

[energydem]

05:18 AM on 09/26/2011

Genders, I have asked you repeatedly to stop writing me. The study you just sent me, which is sitting on my desk does not demonstrate causation but it is the only decent work on the topic. It does, however, say what I have been saying all along. "We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable futureof shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use." The only difference is that I say we actually need more regulation, They say "possibly." '

On the "linkup or shut up" all the documents I cite are sitting on my desk. I do not have the time nor the inclination to find links for you for these documents- find them yourself.

Finally, biochar, as I have said, good for CCS. As a source of fuel however, it produces syngas which is just gas -- when combusted, it will have the same CO2 emissions as combusting natural gas. It also produces bio-oil which, when combusted, could produce black carbon, a pernicious pollutant that causes problems throughout the developing world.

Since I have asked you to stop, you have written me six or seven times. I like communicating with people who have constructive things to say and many of them have inspired me to question my own assumptions. You are a bully and an ideologue of the worst stripe. Do not, do not, write me again.

[Genders]

03:34 AM on 10/03/2011

Don't comment if you don't want people responding. I'm not stalking you, I respond to the bs from whomever states it.

No immunity for you, or me.

[gallon]

01:06 PM on 10/06/2011

Sorry energydem, but this is a public forum. Genders opinions are welcome. As are yours. I have not read either of you enough to decide who to go along with here. But free speech is a founding principle.

[energydem]

10:50 AM on 09/21/2011

"The NYT...as much as 7.9 percent of the methane is "puffing out from shale gas wells, intentionally vented or flared, or seeping from loose pipe fittings along gas distribution lines."

This is preposterous. Hard to understand how gas both "puffs" and "seeps" at the same time but: 1) In its previous estimates, EPA says about 2.5% of all CO2e emissions from all gas production and distribution "puffs out", not shale specific. EPA revised its estimates upwards which would place CO2e from all gas emissions from production and transmission at around 5%; 2) natural gas in its entirety, including when combusted, is only about 16% of the US total. This should give you some idea of the amount of CO2e we are actually talking about here. In short, not much.

Also wrong, "the USGS reported... the Marcellus Shale region has around 84 tcf of recoverable natural gas. This is far less than the 410 trillion cubic feet statistic released earlier this year by [EIA]."

These numbers are apples to oranges. While one can't expect in depth understanding from Propublic, there are wide ranging differences between resources, proved resources, technically recoverable resources and producible resources. These two estimates were looking at different classifications, hence the different numbers. I am not certain why it matters though except for the enviros are desperately trying to prove that there isn't enough gas because its cleanliness and abundance undermines their wind fantasies.

[Genders]

12:14 AM on 09/26/2011

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Natural-Gas-The-Climates-Favourite-Fossil-Fuel-But-What-About-Fracking.html .2 to twice the GHG from fracking versus coal!

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/fracking-methane-flammable-drinking-water-study_n_859677.html
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/scientist-gas-industry-is-withholding-hydro-fracking-contamination-data/6179

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water

[kanda]

02:29 PM on 09/18/2011

Does this mean AGW is hogwash since GOD created natural gas?

[Genders]

12:14 AM on 09/26/2011

No, because humans spew 200 times or so as much CO2 as all the volcanoes in the world combined. Get it?

[kanda]

12:27 PM on 10/04/2011

No, explain it.

[D-Driller]

03:23 AM on 09/18/2011

So does this mean that if we go to 100% wind and solar that global warming will continue, since they don't release sulfur compounds either? We know that natural gas emits a fraction of the GHG's that coal does, so all things being equal, obviously gas is cleaner. Something else to consider - since 1990, the percentage of methane in the atmosphere has not increased, according to NOAA.

[Genders]

12:15 AM on 09/26/2011

Wrong. Fracking gas emit 20% to 100% more GHG than coal. try again.

[D-Driller]

09:34 PM on 10/01/2011

"Methane is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheri­c concentrat­ion is less than CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to some other greenhouse gases (such as CO2, N2O, CFCs). Methane(CH­4) has both natural and anthropoge­nic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environmen­ts, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas and mining coal have added to the atmospheri­c concentrat­ion of methane. Direct atmospheri­c measuremen­t of atmospheri­c methane has been possible since the late 1970s and its concentrat­ion rose from 1.52 ppmv in 1978 by around 1 percent per year to 1990, since when there has been little sustained increase. The current atmospheri­c concentrat­ion is approximat­ely 1.77 ppmv, and there is no scientific consensus on why methane has not risen much since around 1990."

http://www­.ncdc.noaa­.gov/oa/cl­imate/gase­s.html

Right. You try again...

[Genders]

03:48 AM on 10/03/2011

Your link did not work, but I looked it up myself. Interesting that the sinks for Methane seems to have slowed the atmospheric concentration increases, even as emissions have increased. But it increase again in 2007. It's a lot more complicated than I thought, and is part of many more feedback loops than expected.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/papers-on-atmospheric-methane-concentration/

Thanks for the heads up. I will have to study and think about this. My early thought are we have activated more CH4 sinks be reaching this concentration threshold, and we don't know what we are feeding with this methane. I noticed that increase Ozone may also be destroying Methane in the air.

In any case, very interesting fav'ed.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

12:13 AM on 09/18/2011

But it sure would make a few Oil guys even wealthier.

[srheard]

12:58 PM on 09/17/2011

The only ways for man to prevent adding more green house gasses into the atmosphere is by sequestering carbon (long term) or by creating fuels from carbon already in the atmosphere. Burning fuels produced solely from bio-sources recycles carbon with no net gain. But, if you use petroleum based fertilizers to produce the source of the bio fuel, you are still moving carbon from where it is sequestered into the atmosphere, producing a net increase. We need an energy industry based on conservation, recycling carbon already in the atmosphere, supplemented with zero-carbon energy sources. And, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

I do not think there is the global political will to change our habits. Bio technology (i.e. super diatoms sequestering millions of tons of carbon as calcium carbonate on the ocean bottom) might work, but there is no business model for technology (the government won’t fund it with this political climate, and Al Gore is not going to win the carbon credit argument). Perhaps it will just take a dramatic drop in the world's human population. Perhaps this is why the Wealthy Class is so tight with their money right now - it will take a lot of wealth to survive that kind of crash.

[Jim Milks]

11:28 AM on 09/18/2011

It's also far harder for diatoms, corals and other marine creatures to create their CaCO3 skeleton in today's oceans due to a drop in oceanic pH.

[gallon]

05:26 PM on 10/06/2011

Interesting. I understand that things had been working in equilibrium all along. But how does it work. A drop in pH is a rise in available carbon, no?

[Genders]

12:17 AM on 09/26/2011

BIochar is our only hope. http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/01/james-lovelock-one-last-chance-to-save.html

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity

http://dieselgreenfuels.com/blog/?p=67
Biodiesel pricing going up by $1 per gallon due to tax credit loss
Posted on February 22, 2010 by admin

http://biocharfarms.org/biochar_production_energy/
http://www.anellotech.com/tech.html
http://www.kit.edu/english/55_535.php
http://w2energy.com/
http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/02/16/biofuels-digest-special-report-on-gasification-pyrolysis/
http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/01/30/kit-lurgi-to-develop-pyrolysis-gasification-pilot-plant-with-goal-of-249-renewable-diesel/ goal of 2.50/gallon
http://cemendocino.ucdavis.edu/files/73025.pdf 2$ per gallon bio gasoline and bio diesel from waste.

[sotiredofstupid]

11:08 AM on 09/17/2011

This article demonstrates the failing attitude on the side of climate change science. If you can prove the change is man made (let's assume it is accepted at all levels of society) then you need to be supportive of steps taken to reduce the problem. Not complacent mind you, but supportive. Renewables just can't make the output needed to meet current demand. Look up the electric rates of California compared to the national average(much higher). They get 25% of their electric power from wind and still can't be competitive in the market. If you want science and industry to support you, you have to support science and industry. And yes, a huge amount of science and money was used to develope natural gas turbine power generation for the sole purpose of "cleaner" energy. It is time to stop sounding the alarm and start building solutions. Baby steps are better than no steps.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

12:16 AM on 09/18/2011

Wrong on California:

``Wind power accounted for accounted for 3.3% of total electricity generated in California during 2009.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_California

Sorry, but they'll have to go from 2010 3,177MW to around 25GW (25,000 MW) from Wind to meet your fantastical claim that Cali gets 25% of it's power from Wind.

[sotiredofstupid]

09:40 AM on 09/18/2011

Oops! I missed the decimal point. Sorry! The data I was looking at quoted 2.5%. My point is still valid in spite of my error. I do need to start proof reading my posts though!

[Jim Milks]

11:25 AM on 09/18/2011

Unfortunately, while switching to natural gas would reduce the amount of methyl-mercury, fine particulates, SO2, NOx, etc., if the findings of this study are confirmed with by more studies, then making the switch won't do anything to slow climate change (only a 0.1ºF reduction by 2050–and that's under the best case scenario). That finding is much clearer on the original press release from the NCAR: http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5292/switching-coal-natural-gas-would-do-little-global-climate-study-indicates

So what this study indicates is that natural gas is far from a magic bullet to "solve" climate change. In reality, it leaves us with only renewable energy as a real solution. We'd better get cranking to get renewables up to the level we'll need.

[floridan56]

09:04 AM on 09/17/2011

It might 'burn' cleaner but forcing it out of the earth for sale, has become another filthy toxic business.

[realityCheckInTheMail]

01:46 PM on 09/16/2011

"Whatever the methane leakage rate, you can't get away from the additional warming that will occur initially because, by not burning coal, you're not having the cooling effect of sulfates and other particles. "

Well, you can always deliberately emit sulfates and similar particles, without burning coal.

That's exactly the solution proposed by the Freakonomics authors, and they were lambasted for it by the climate scientists.

So, apparently, sulfate emission is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the political agenda you're pushing.

[undsoweiter]

11:03 PM on 09/16/2011

Acid rain
Ocean acidification
Mass extinction

[realityCheckInTheMail]

01:32 PM on 09/18/2011

Wait- don't these things happen with coal burning then?

Is coal burning somehow the "clean way" to emit sulfates. (No, it isn't).

You simply can't have it both ways - either decreasing sulfate emissions is, on sum, worthwhile, or it isn't.

If it it, than replacing coal with gas is doubly good. Less CO2, less sulfates.

If it isn't, then you can replace coal with gas, and then can the sulfate emissions constant with non-power-generating sulfate emissions.

Either way, the line of reasoning employed by this author is completely disingenious.

[ubrew12]

12:52 PM on 09/17/2011

sulfate aerosols = emphisyma deaths
sulfate aerosols = lower crop yields (higher prices, more political unrest)
That should be part of the Freakonomics equation.

[Jim Milks]

01:26 PM on 09/16/2011

Here. The news release from the NCAR clarifies the results of the study better than what's written above.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5292/switching-coal-natural-gas-would-do-little-global-climate-study-indicates

[dobermanmacleod]

12:25 PM on 09/16/2011

There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of any other energy technology. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Still don’t believe me? A major US corporation has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced late October in the US, with the unit hitting the market in November. How can any fossil fuel compete with such cheap energy (and clean to boot!).

By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

[Jim Milks]

01:29 PM on 09/16/2011

You might want to read the article that accompanies Dr. Brian Josephson's video (your first link). It's far from encouraging in regards to cold fusion.

[Pilotincommand2]

11:18 PM on 09/16/2011

Cold fusion is a pipe dream at this point. Most likely a hash pipe.