From the AGU Journal Highlights:
Replacing coal with natural gas would reduce warming
A debate has raged in the past couple of years as to whether natural gas is better or worse overall than coal and oil from a global warming perspective. The back-and-forth findings have been due to the timelines taken into consideration, the details of natural gas extraction, and the electricity-generating efficiency of various fuels. An analysis by Cathles, which focuses exclusively on potential warming and ignores secondary considerations, such as economic, political, or other environmental concerns, finds that natural gas is better for electricity generation than coal and oil under all realistic circumstances.
To come to this conclusion, the author considered three different future fuel consumption scenarios: (1) a business-as-usual case, which sees energy generation capacity continue at its current pace with its current energy mix until the middle of the century, at which point the implementation of low-carbon energy sources dominates and fossil fuel–derived energy production declines; (2) a gas substitution scenario, where natural gas replaces all coal power production and any new oil-powered facilities, with the same midcentury shift; and (3) a low-carbon scenario, where all electricity generation is immediately and aggressively switched to non–fossil fuel sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear.
The author finds that the gas substitution scenario would realize 40 percent of the reduction in global warming that could be achieved with a full switch to low-carbon fuel sources. The benefit for mitigating warming revolves around the fact that to produce an equivalent amount of electricity burning natural gas would release less carbon dioxide than burning oil or coal. Though atmospheric methane traps more outgoing radiation than carbon dioxide does, at reasonable leakage rates its atmospheric concentration is much lower and what is released decomposes much more quickly. The author suggests that over timescales relevant to large-scale warming—decades to centuries—the effect of any methane released during natural gas extraction would be inconsequential.
Source:
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems,doi:10.1029/2012GC004032, 2012
Title:
“Assessing the greenhouse impact of natural gas”
Authors:
- L. M. Cathles
- Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
-
Key Points
- Natural gas substitution achieves 40% warming reduction of low carbon fuels
- Duration of substitution does not affect 40% benefit
- Full benefit at gas leakage 1% of production or less
Abstract
The global warming impact of substituting natural gas for coal and oil is currently in debate. We address this question here by comparing the reduction of greenhouse warming that would result from substituting gas for coal and some oil to the reduction which could be achieved by instead substituting zero carbon energy sources. We show that substitution of natural gas reduces global warming by 40% of that which could be attained by the substitution of zero carbon energy sources. At methane leakage rates that are ∼1% of production, which is similar to today’s probable leakage rate of ∼1.5% of production, the 40% benefit is realized as gas substitution occurs. For short transitions the leakage rate must be more than 10 to 15% of production for gas substitution not to reduce warming, and for longer transitions the leakage must be much greater. But even if the leakage was so high that the substitution was not of immediate benefit, the 40%-of-zero-carbon benefit would be realized shortly after methane emissions ceased because methane is removed quickly from the atmosphere whereas CO2 is not. The benefits of substitution are unaffected by heat exchange to the ocean. CO2 emissions are the key to anthropogenic climate change, and substituting gas reduces them by 40% of that possible by conversion to zero carbon energy sources. Gas substitution also reduces the rate at which zero carbon energy sources must eventually be introduced.
But that’s no good. Gas can be put into cars which allow us to go where we want. They will not stand for it.
One huge problem here. The author assumes facts not in evidence. That Anthropogenic CO2 is detrimental to earths climate.
Surely, the greenhouse effect of the methane would diminish only after shale gas production completely ceased. In the meantime, if warming theory is to be believed(?), the warming effect of the uncontrolled methane leakage during production added to pipeline leakage would increase warming over and above the business as usual level keeping coal within the mix.
Moreover, when economic, political and other environmental concerns are taken into account, the replacement of coal with gas has no advantage but plenty of disadvantages.
Let’s get a move on (UK) then!
Are they estimating that in 2212 the atmospheric CO2 will be somewhere between 560 and 800 ppm? Doesn’t any of that exceed the greatly feared “tipping points” that doom all species and the planet itself? My prediction is that the change will have no detectable affect on global warming. We should check back in 50 year increments for status, but the real decision is in 2212. If I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it. 200-year projections based on a mountain of assumptions are somewhat meaningless in my opinion.
Other considerations such as real pollution, enabling ordinary people to have electricity, and saving national economies from doom, are “secondary”. Only mythical KKKarbon is “primary.”
That tells the whole story. Facts are illegal.
True in every area of modern life.
Are we talking gas, as in a vapour, or gas as in gasoline. I’m confused.
Just as an aside – The uk govt. is planning to electrify a large amount of our railway system – I wonder, given their enthusiasm for “renewable” and “sustainable” energy production, where all this extra electricity is going to comefrom!
Anthea
Yet another map without New Zealand on it. I’m sick of idiot geographers dropping my entire country off the map like it doesn’t exist.
The Wonderfull Irony
We will make the emission targets by 2050
Not by costly Renewables and Nuclear too expensive.,but Shale
The left had to hijack and radicalise the wet Enviromentalist agenda when the Berlin wall came down.The Chinese peasants marched to factories instead of to the Paddy fields.
Now the left get frozen out again by Shale.
Local gas fields supplying local generation.
Coal bed Methane just send a a drill and a pipe to get the energy not a miner with a Davey lamp
4 great things about gas and gas taps .Turn them on and off and up and down.
Cant do that with a Solar panel or a windmill (or a coal fired power station too easiliy)
Just to really put the icing on the cake and the cat among the pigeons they found Shale oil and gas in Israel and the Palestinian teritory.They even found Shale in Zimbabwe .Now we have a reason to go in and get Mugabwe out.Talking politics Saddam and Gadafi both gone and President Assad when he goes we might find where Saddam hid his WMDs before the invasion.Might prove interesting.
Enviromentalism bit like everything else Not about who ruins the planet but who runs it.
When Graphine batterry technogy comes on line .
10 000 mile range electric car top speed 100 mph as safe and luxurious as a modern petrol equivalent.Hyper recharged on its annual service.Imagine never having to stop at another petrol station.Would that make you go to your local BMW dealership and buy one.
Maybe the discovery of the Higgs god partical is what will finally usher in the new millenium era .
A new Reniasance for mankind.The Iron Age. The Bronze age .The space age .Nuclear age.The Information age and NOW the Shale age.
Mother Earth farting out Cheap abundant pollutionless energy everywhere for everybody
Just drill it, Frack it, pipe it and lite it.
The United States instead of regulating coal plants out of existience , should promote putting gas turbines at the front of coal plants and make them combined cycle plants and use existing rail and distribution infrastructure for cheap transport and reindustrializing with steel plants and other heavy industry. Obama should direct EPA to facilitate the installation of pipelines to the former steel producing areas and incentivize the installation of state of the art steel production facilities to have co-gen facilities that push energy efficiencies to the 80%area. Pull these industries out of third world countries using coal and this accelerates the reduction in CO2 even further. Internal combustion use of gas for vehicles should be secondary to electric vehicles which will have 60% efficiencies instead of combustion efficiencies. Instead of injecting CO2 into the ground, any excess methane could be injected instead for later use. The Reform Party candidate Chlapowski promotes these ideas for the U.S. vs the job killing high energy cost projects of the Obama administration. Stop the cap and trade racket.
Shlae gas is even more prevalent than the map indicates. I have a brother-in-law drilling all over Iowa and he gets natural gas EVERY place he drills.
It’s also nice to note that shale gas is NOT primarily concentrated in the Middle East 🙂
This author has no understanding of CO2 or CH4 properties.
Maybe he would learn something at http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/
Note it is oil and gas companies that benefit from replacing coal. Oil companies tried to get into coal in Columbia, Indonesia, Africa & Australia but burnt their figures through poor management leading to poor returns and even losses. Of course oil companies & oil funded greens would like to push natural gas & CSG and particularly LNG which they can dominate because of the large funds required,
Petrossa got my first thought – this all assumes CO2 is bad, an assumption that is not indicated by the evidence presented.
My second thought is I am all for natural gas exploration from whatever geological formations we can find them in, shale is just another source. I think natural gas is a wonderful fuel source to use along with coal and petroleum. Do I think we should use them in the most efficient method practical? – (self-snip) YES! I think most of us that post here would say it is wrong to use things in an inefficient or wasteful manner. Those are some of my biggest problems with the “renewable” movement – their inefficiencies. Well, that and the fact you can’t get enough energy from it to pay for itself no matter how much subsidy is involved.
I refuse to live as a cave man to satisfy the green movement’s religious fantasies.
Anthea Collins,
This post is talking about natural gas, which is a gas composed mainly of methane.
And use of electricity in the UK transport sector is tiny; electrifying a few more railway lines won’t increase total demand by more than a fraction of 1%.
There is progress in surprising places. This week’s The Economist has a feature on shale gas, with 8 separate articles, two of which were on fracing, both reasonably accurate. Like the NYT, The Economist has been alarmist about warming by CO2, and still is, but they have obviously taken the position that natural gas – a fossil fuel – is a lesser evil.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/specialreports?year%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2012&category=76986
Seeing as how most of the globe’s landmass (and ALL of the oceans) fall ‘outside of the scope of the report’, I’d be prepared to bet that, when drilling REALLY gets going, they’ll find the stuff just about everywhere…!
The greens will be spitting feathers….
Petrossa 2:29….
Spot on Sir, good shot!!
This must mean that they are going to screen “Gasland” on public TV several times a week now and that they are going to interview hypochondriac people who are claming they have been poisioned by fracking on a regular schedule in the news. All in the name of the mighty greenpeace and WWF, who rules the world.
I found a cartoon in which one cave man says the following to another cave man:
“Something’s just not right — our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty.”
link
I have often seen other people expressing the same thought but the cartoonist pretty much nails it.
Another consideration is that a gas- electric plant is more simple to build (no steam cycle, no body of water required) and can be installed almost anywhere, at almost any size (easy to scale up or down).
Just a thought.
“Replacing coal with natural gas would reduce warming.”
True, but not here, it might be true on Albert Gore’s planet. If you tried it here on our planet, any temperature reductions would be unmeasurable.
Natural gas is very clean-burning and it does release less “carbon” and other pollutants than coal. Harvesting natural gas, even shale gas, probably causes less environmental damage than coal as well.
I’m not concerned about the “carbon” emissions, but there are some tangible benefits of natural gas over coal. But coal is an inexpensive energy source and shouldn’t be overlooked.
Replacing coal with NG will not stop AGW for 2 simple reasons – 1) CO2 is not the main driver of climate, and 2)Because there is little to no AGW. However, NG is less expensive than imported oil, and combined with clean coal, and domestic oil could make the US the top energy producing nation in the world.
” Petrossa says:July 17, 2012 at 2:29 am
One huge problem here. The author assumes facts not in evidence. That Anthropogenic CO2 is detrimental to earths climate.”
And there you have it in a nutshell. With all the real pollutants to worry about all you ever hear about is the “evil CO2”. When you look at natural gas with huge reductions in sulfur, mercury, nitrites it is a wonderful technological bridge for our energy needs for the next 50-100+ years.
So will they work on making coal as clean? LFTR nukes? Nah they’ll just ban fracking. Sigh.