36 replies to this topic

[Dingo]

World CO2 emissions are going up rapidly since a slight recession break. China and the 3rd world in general are taking the lead. The traditional industrial countries are trending slightly downward but this is a bit misleading since the 1st world is outsourcing much of its high energy production to the 3rd world. Then there is the clear cutting of forests. Brazil and Indonesia seem to be the biggest contributors there.

http://www.earth-pol..._emissions_2013

Quote

More warming is in the pipeline as the climate system slowly responds to the higher CO2 concentrations. Reports from international institutions, such as the International Energy Agency, based on work by thousands of scientists emphasize that little time remains to cut emissions and avoid a climate catastrophe.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Although it's not mentioned, all the methane being released from fracking wells (across the globe now, not just
in the US) is adding to it.
It's not regulated, and therefore, the volume being released is unknown.

And too, China is cranking out solar for world export, and installing some in their own country, but coal is
still their number one choice for energy.
Add to that, the need of too many in that country buying cars and more e-gadgets.

We're in the soup.

(Btw- dingo; thank you for all of your contributions to this site.)

[Dingo]

You're welcome SP.

And yes I have been wondering when they are going to factor in the methane contribution. There seems to be a tendency to treat natural gas as alternative energy. I suspect leaving unburned methane out of the equation contributes to that.

[Phil]

I don't think much methane is leaking from fracking, that's profit out the window.  If it was significant, the loss in revenue would demand a fix.  The overshadowing methane bomb is in the permafrost and shallow hydrates.

As the book Eaarth points out, we are beyond stopping this train, time to deploy our resources to adapting to the new earth (Eaarth as the author calls it).

It brings me back to a quote by an environmentalist on earth day a few years ago: "If China get's on board, pretty much anything we do won't matter, if China doesn't get on board pretty much anything we do won't matter!".   The developing world is driving the train, the US is just a passenger at this point.

[Dingo]

Phil, on 29 July 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

I don't think much methane is leaking from fracking, that's profit out the window.  If it was significant, the loss in revenue would demand a fix.  

I would check this out. Independent tests report far higher methane release than industry checks. And remember, it's not just the fracking. One needs to determine methane leakage over the entire system - extraction, transport and use.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 29 July 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

I don't think much methane is leaking from fracking, that's profit out the window.  If it was significant, the loss in revenue would demand a fix.  The overshadowing methane bomb is in the permafrost and shallow hydrates.

Funny you should mention that....
It's not methane being discussed in this article, but the waste of natural gas from fracking, doesn't seem to bother
them much.
And two-
a debate is now on about the methane release.
Some scientists are saying-no worries while other maintain an OMG attitude.
Here

[Phil]

From your post: "Although it's not mentioned, all the methane being released from fracking wells (across the globe now, not just in the US) is adding to it."

Did you mean natural gas?  I'm so confused!

Good news about the hydrate, dodged a bullet there!

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 29 July 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

From your post: "Although it's not mentioned, all the methane being released from fracking wells (across the globe now, not just in the US) is adding to it."

Did you mean natural gas?  I'm so confused!

Good news about the hydrate, dodged a bullet there!

Methane is being released from fracking wells. (Along with natural gas)
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

[Phil]

I believe you but I hope you aren't basing your beliefs on a movie!

[Shortpoet-GTD]

No, from other sources as well.

This Daily Kos article links to a Cornell University study on fracking/methane release.
Part of the findings-
"--  Between 3.6 and 7.9% of the methane escapes into the atmosphere during shale-gas production due to venting and well leaks; this level is at least 30% higher than that released during conventional natural gas production.
  --  On a 20-year time horizon, the GHG footprint for shale gas is up to 43% higher than conventional natural gas, 50% greater than oil and 20% higher than coal for the same amount of energy produced by each of those other sources."
http://www.dailykos....ust-be-Counted#

This Think Progress article links to a Duke University study-
"The researchers analyzed 141 drinking water wells.
Methane was detected in 82 percent of drinking water samples."
http://thinkprogress...d-with-methane/

This article cites a paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences-
methane release from fracking, along with propane and ethane.
http://www.scientifi...ania-duke-study

[Phil]

So why did the EPA say there was no evidence?  The last I read they refused to get involved and put it back on the states to regulate it.  Does the economy trump environmentalism even in the Obama administration?   (That would be my guess. ).

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 05 August 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

So why did the EPA say there was no evidence?  The last I read they refused to get involved and put it back on the states to regulate it.  Does the economy trump environmentalism even in the Obama administration?   (That would be my guess. ).

Sequestration. There's no money. And their hamstrung by the t-gop in congress.

[Phil]

Total BS, sequestration is like 1% this year.  It's not even 1% cut, just 1% less than built in growth.  I guarantee there is at least 10% waste, more likely 20%, will they cut that?  NO!

The EPA ignores congress completely, both parties.  Congress voted specifically not to regulate carbon, that is now the EPA's bread and butter.  The EPA just wrote new rules on coal, even over democrat objections.  Sorry, no hamstringing!

[still learning]

Phil, on 05 August 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

.  Congress voted specifically not to regulate carbon,

   When did that happen?  Was a law passed?  Regarding ignoring Congress, the EPA, while operating under laws passed by Congress, is no more required to follow the wishes of Congress that are not passed into law than any other part of the Executive branch of the US.  Congress' job is to legislate.  Little of that lately.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

More methane leaking from fracking operations.

The EPA ballparked the methane leakage at around 1.5% but this study
(to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters)
puts it at around 6.2-11.7%



"Colm Sweeney, a coauthor of the study and a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder, told

Climate Central
that he was surprised by the “huge amount” of methane emissions the study found.
“We’re estimating that 9 percent of that is just leaking right out, never getting to the end of the pipeline . . .
to the actual user point,” he said."

Ok, so we low ball it, and put it at 5-7% (in the US). That's still a lot of methane; a powerful green house gas.
And what about the other countries that are jumping on the natural gas bandwagon? How safe/efficient are
their drilling operations?

It could be worse for the planet than coal.
Climate Central/ HP Source

[Phil]

_{Bad wording.  The bill to regulate carbon was not passed.  That is equivalent to congress saying no because that was the result of the vote.}  

"the EPA, while operating under laws passed by Congress, is no more required to follow the wishes of Congress that are not passed into law than any other part of the Executive branch of the US."

My point exactly, they are not "hamstrung by the t-gop in congress."  Right?

[still learning]

Phil, on 07 August 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

_{Bad wording.  The bill to regulate carbon was not passed.}  

You're referring to the Waxman-Markey bill of 2009, sounds like.  I'd kind of forgotten.  Got through the House, but the Senate never acted on the bill.  Was mainly a CO2 cap-and-trade bill.  Think it would've actually removed any CO2 regulating role of the EPA and have DOE do the job.  Don't think any of the other proposed CO2 regulating bills have gotten "out of committee" and been voted on by the whole House or the whole Senate either.  Congress hasn't passed a bill to specifically remove CO2 regulation authority from the EPA either though (as it could), so the old Clean Air Act is what the EPA is making do with to begin CO2 regulation.  Congress does ultimately "control the pursestrings" though. .

[Phil]

Yes, the purse strings are the one trump card they have.  A lot of people, including me, think that congress has passed the buck by allowing so much power in the bureaucracies.  Anymore congress just writes outlines and lets the bureaucrats fill in the blanks with all too often disastrous results.  So when something bad happens, instead of taking the blame they can blame the bureaucrats instead and pass yet another law so it looks like they are doing something.

Not just in government, it seems more and more people are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions, this is just another case of congress/president reflecting the population at large.

I'll end with this, where is all the CO2 coming from?  Too many people!

[still learning]

Phil, on 10 August 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

.....So when something bad happens, instead of taking the blame they can blame the bureaucrats instead .....

    Naah.  Surely not.  Can't be.  Congresscreatures are all competent, intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working, well-informed, far-seeing, wise, tolerant and mindful of the common good aren't they?  Don't all us voters cast our votes wisely?......

[Dingo]

Just to throw a monkey wrench in I wish some maverick congressman would offer a bill that stipulates that from now on the cost of energy to the public and business must reflect its actual costs. There will be no government subsidies. With gasoline at say $18 a gallon that should spark an interesting discussion.   It would also put the so called free market folks on the spot.