Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 21, 2010 at 5:50

essay - Thanks for those citations. I won't speculate on intents or motives, but here's one I found that MIGHT explain the increase. One word ... aerosols.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/art...


Carp, okay that link won't work now. Let me see if I can fix it. It is an archived article.

In the meantime, here are the first few paragraphs.

From The Times October 30, 2009
Methane’s impact on global warming far higher than previously thoughtMark Henderson, Science Editor The effects of a critical greenhouse gas on global warming have been significantly underestimated, according to research suggesting that emissions controls and climate models may need to be revised

Methane’s impact on global temperatures is about a third higher than generally thought because previous estimates have not accounted for its interaction with airborne particles called aerosols, Nasa scientists found.

When this indirect effect of the potent greenhouse gas is included one tonne of methane has about 33 times as much effect on the climate over 100 years as a tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than 25 times as in standard estimates.


80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 21, 2010 at 6:30

Hi Sesport,
Hmmm, this (the CO2 equivalent, or whatever they call it) sure looks like a parameter that can be dinked with to get what you want. But if EPA jumps on the new number as golden, then you have a problem. This is the elephant in the room in almost all modeling of complex processes in nature (I actually have spent a certain (huge) amount of time working on computational modeling of various biomolecules, so I am painfully aware of the raft of assumptions, simplifications, and approximations with nonlinear effects that go into modeling calculations). On the one hand I get furious with all the sleight of hand. On the other hand, actually getting everything right and coming up with rock solid numbers is pretty much beyond our capabilities. It is an interesting philosophical problem (what to do when you know that your predictions are seriously flawed, but you still have to do something); unfortunately long range public policy is at least argued if not set based on competing models. So anyway, I'll be interested in following this thread of CO2 equivalency within the overall topic of relative GHG impacts of various fuels. I am guessing that if this number "sticks", then all you can do to counter it is make efforts to reduce methane leakage due to NG use; that and do a better job of calculating methane content due to biological processes (so if we are careful, and "NG as an energy source" only accounts for 0.1% of total methane in the environment, then the fact (to be proven) that it is a more potent GHG really shouldn't matter that much).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 21, 2010 at 6:52

Thank you, Robert. So, as an argument against ng, you think "other" energy resource producers, indeed anyone who cites this in argument against ng. would have a weak leg to stand on? I ask simply because I "tripped" over this information as it was linked in an article published by an organization that might have some powerful sway.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 21, 2010 at 7:56

I am skeptical of the quality of a variety of numbers that go into these models, believe that the errors compared to reality could be just huge. Look how much the estimate is changing! All the sudden it jumps from around 20-21 (per Essay's sources) to 33. That is an increase of 65%. That just gives me great confidence in both sets of numbers... (not). So one has to question if this number is really any good at all, or a way to adjust a model to get what you want. Just because they changed the number, that doesn't mean they moved closer to reality. I am also highly skeptical that all important factors are being considered in any of these models. So folks with vested interests can all play numbers games. The O&G guys can, and do, play them too. At some levels, I think all you can do as an individual is gestalt the whole mess and support what seems to make the best sense, while trying to really honestly look at the models. But most of us don't have the time or expertise to even begin to guess how good or bad the models really are, and I hate to say something against science or scientists, but when you look at what goes on in govt institutions, you have to realize that objectivity is often lost (so we are screwed, we can't trust industry with vested interests, and we can't trust institutions - the thing that is really hard to deal with here - everybody, practically, has got some agenda that influences their objectivity; that combined with the fact that the hardest phrase to get out of an expert is "I don't know" - even if that is the case). If we are NG proponents (I mostly am, and I realize that I partly have a financially-based bias, but it is also a stance based on at least an honest attempt at evaluating the alternatives and all the costs and benefits), then it probably behooves us to at least point out the weakenesses in models or model input parameters that argue against our preferred energy source. It is ultimately a huge political game, with a bit of controversial science behind it, in my mind, and I am endlessly amazed by how rarely there is honest objectivity - a willingness to admit the flaws in all these models. Sorry for jumping on a soapbox; this sort of stuff just frustrates the heck out of me though. In conclusion, I would probably say that in my opinion, anyone using just a GHG model to support their energy source over all others is relying on models that are apt to not be all that accurate, and if you want to look at costs and benefits, you have to assign the error bars as best you can to the GHG models, and THEN add in all the other factors that inform you as to what is the "best" source of energy. Ultimately, we are going to NEED, and use, a whole mix of things - this is something the greens I think miss - I don't believe we can drop fossil fuels without wrecking the economy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 21, 2010 at 21:47

"lies, damned lies, and climate modeling"

the number for methane stayed at 21 for a long time, at least a decade of varying sources. it then jumped to 72 in the space of about 5 years per the ipcc's latest proclamation on the matter, an increase of almost 350%

i had decided for myself that global warming was bogus hysteria before i ever had an inkling about the haynesville shale, it certainly doesn't make me completely objective but there it is. i started reading about AGW after becoming interested in the pollution output of paper mills.

initially the "hockey stick" graph manipulation put me on the trail, and after further layman's inquiry into the depths of both sides even more suspicions were aroused in my greasy little noodle. climategate put a bow on it. those jokers can't even reproduce their results because they "ran out of room" for the data? please.

the cries of "settled science" should be enough to raise red flags to anybody that understands what the scientific method is supposed to be, versus what they are basing their conclusions on.

“Science is not about building a body of known ‘facts’. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good.” – Sir Terry Pratchett

we can't always predict whether or not it will rain next week, much less what a hurricane is going to do. i am solidly in the camp that says, these long-term climate models that attempt to predict the future decades or centuries out are untestable and unverifiable; as such, they are basically useless. surely it's a damned silly way to decide on spending trillions of dollars.

somebody who worked on the manhattan project said, maybe feynman, that scientist's fascination with computer models was a disease.

at any rate, my co2 apostasy continues.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 24, 2010 at 19:15

Sorry to add to your apostasy ...

http://www.b-e-f.org/chevrolet/

Nice tag team, huh? Want to see what Chevy is touting? Wonder if they'll be bringing this to the Asian market, too. Good thing I have a helmet to use when beating my head against a brick wall.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 24, 2010 at 19:55

I figure the fundamental problem with a CNG car has to be that there really is no justification for marking the thing up by $5K-$10K or whatever the heck it is for a half ton of lithium batteries and 2 engines that they can sell you in one of these electric things (apologies for tech/cost inaccuracies, but I am not buying any of this stuff until it clearly makes sense). And I don't know how anybody else feels about this, but I also think a windmill every 100 yds seriously detracts from the scenery...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 24, 2010 at 20:30

Robert - You mean EV'S (electric vehicles), don't you? CNG's are compressed nat gas vehicles.

I agree with your sentiments for exactly the same reasons and more, to include the recharge time and miles per charge. The cost puts them out of price range for the "average joes," and right now they seem best suited to commuting, not so for long distance travel. With current belt tightening who is going to want the extra vehicle that's limited in use?

BTW, my response to essay is meant as tongue-in-cheek. lol, essay doesn't need any assistance with any apostasies. Now if we could just get on the same page to smack down this latest jab at ng with the methane-schmethane comparison.

thanks for your thoughts

80)

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 25, 2010 at 5:41

Hi Sesport,
The wording is a little convoluted, but it was late, and this whole progression-to-the-next-ideal-vehicle thing is a bit of a hot button item for me. What I was trying to say is that because the car manufacturer cannot bump the sticker price up by some large amount for a CNG vehicle (at least not justifiably, except for regulation costs that shouldn't be there in the first place), and because the manufacturer does not get this "green" bragging rights thing that plays rather well in the major population centers from a CNG vehicle (or at least to the extent the manufacturer gets it for an EV), car manufacturers are driven to make these EV's work, whether or not there is a more logical alternative. There are lots of places where owning a Prius is a statement of values. I see it as some other sort of unintended statement. Then you get the government incentivizing purchase of these EV's through tax credits, etc. - if the darn things make economic and environmental sense, then clearly we, the taxpayer, should not be having to subsidize the purchase of them, which is exactly what we are doing, and it is yet another thing that allows the car manufacturer to opt to put all efforts into manufacturing these things at a high price. Then there are the recharging issues, the issue of forcing people who can't afford two cars to choose between something suitable for commute vs. longrange use that you mention. I DO believe we need to be working on an efficient car of the future, but general purpose, and with reasonable range, and capable of being refueled in minutes (so there has to be something past a CNG vehicle at some point, but a CNG is an amazingly cheap stopgap measure - in terms of actual, not regulation, costs). I have a friend from Sri Lanka. There, they are basically doing backyard conversions of vehicles to CNG all over the place because they can't afford gasoline to a larger extent than we can't afford gasoline... This is not exactly a hotbed of technical innovation. I sometimes despair that critical thought and common sense are goners. Then the picture of windmills just sets it off perfectly. I have not done a recent critical assessment of the practicality of windmills; they are getting better in terms of efficiency I believe. I don't know how much better we are doing at keeping them from being killing fields for birds and bats, but there have been problems in the past. But I have read some assessments that indicate that they really don't solve much of the energy problem unless you put them everywhere. I have lived out west on and off for the last 30 years or so, originally for work, but I like the mountains and scenic vistas once I escape the areas with people packed in like sardines. I remember seeing the first windmill farms outside the SF Bay area in the foothills in the '80's. Now the bloody things are creeping up foothills and across scenic vistas everywhere. They are undoubtedly subsidized too, just like corn ethanol. The funny thing about this - the guys that foam at the mouth most about things destroying the scenic beauty of our country are probably 100% behind these things. Solar I think actually makes more sense, from the reading I have been able to do. The yield on newer generation solar panels is I think substantially above what you get via photosynthesis (great article in Science (the journal) a couple of years back - not widely accessible outside universities, but I need to dig up some of the facts). There is also a great study by some physicist in England that points out the shortfall in energy production possible by current renewable technology I should dig out and provide pointers to. Anyway, I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I think that in holding these views I am a bit of a rarity in the scientific and technical community. But in that community, PC holds sway, so you can really get some looks. I suppose we should all get more involved in the political process as well as the educational process, but it is really an uphill climb.

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 25, 2010 at 18:27

lol, We've run out of reply buttons.

Thanks again, Robert. There are probably as many diverse opinions about which energy route to take into the future as there are posters here. Somehow I think we'll ultimately end up with some kind of hodge-podge that will be designed to best fit regional needs and costs to consumers.

As for the methane issue of whether the fracking of ng is on about the same level as coal, I'm wondering how ng would fare in comparison if the entire picture were examined. It seems like targeting just the frack stage is microanalyzing to get to the results that show it to be on par with coal. How would ng hold up against coal if all the data for methane released from start to finish were compared. In other words, start with the spud and finish with burning ng as fuel, then compare it to excavation for coal through to the point that it's burned as fuel.

Targeting the frack seems like nit-picking to me. I could be wrong, though.

80)

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 25, 2010 at 19:03

Sesport, the analysis I posted by Pace did look at start to finish (ie full life cycle) and coal has over twice the GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, NO2) as natural gas. I have another life cycle GHG analysis done by ARI/ICF for domestic natural gas and imported LNG. I could post if you are interested. Of course I have done my own independent analysis also.

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 25, 2010 at 20:17

Hi Sesport -
Probably best to let Les post more of his data and analysis. I thought the stuff from Howarth was a bit thin, so I sort of dismissed it out of hand, but will look over it all again at some point. I think Les has a much better handle on this issue than I do. I remain highly skeptical that ng could possibly be more polluting than coal because 1) per btu released, burning ng produces less CO2 than coal (as a PhD biochemist and general data guy, I am pretty confident of that conclusion...), and 2) I have a hard time imagining that they are letting tons of methane into the atmosphere when dinking around getting a well in (it would be plain dangerous, I would think - this I don't have any practical experience on, so others can comment with more knowledge). I DO know that coal mines are essentially open to the air, that miners are getting killed by methane (ng) explosions in coal mines all the time, and that there are coal fires in mines in Appalachia they can't put out, burning underground for decades, producing all kinds of great pollution. I also know in my two trips in my life across W Virginia, I was impressed by the pollution from mining just hanging in the air (no offense to W VA; I have family down around Houston and have spent lots of time and have inlaws in the Baton Rouge area, both are petrochem industry hotbeds, neither is particularly great on air quality). But I'll let Les' hard data prevail; I am going anecdotal on you here to try to explain why this Howarth guy waving his hands did not make me fall over.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page