Through the years, we keep hearing that methane, much like Trenberth’s missing heat, is going to jump out and get us.
Usually, the panic about the “methane bomb” from frozen ocean floor methane hydrates or methane from melting Arctic tundra. Now, they are taking on methane as a danger from natural gas production, and suggesting we just skip it altogether and go straight to wind and solar. Yeah right, like that will work.
Problem is, as this IPCC AR5 graph at right shows, the reality of atmosphereic methane seems to be far less than model projections. Plus, it seems to have an irrelevant contribution in the spectral scheme of all things GHG.
Control methane now, greenhouse gas expert warns
By Melissa Osgood, Cornell University
ITHACA, N.Y. – As the shale gas boom continues, the atmosphere receives more methane, adding to Earth’s greenhouse gas problem. Robert Howarth, greenhouse gas expert and ecology and environmental biology professor, fears that we may not be many years away from an environmental tipping point – and disaster.
“We have to control methane immediately, and natural gas is the largest methane pollution source in the United States,” said Howarth, who explains in an upcoming journal article that Earth may reach the point of no return if average global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in future decades. “If we hit a climate-system tipping point because of methane, our carbon dioxide problem is immaterial. We have to get a handle on methane, or increasingly risk global catastrophe.”
Howarth’s study, “A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas,” will be published May 20 in the journal Energy Science and Engineering.
Natural gas – that once seemingly promising link between the era of oil and coal to the serenity of sustainable solar, wind and water power – is a major source of atmospheric methane, due to widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas. Howarth points to “radiative forcing,” a measure of trapped heat in Earth’s atmosphere from man-made greenhouse gases. The current role of methane looms large, he says, contributing over 40 percent of current radiative forcing from all greenhouse gases, based on the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The role of methane as a driver of global warming is even more critical than this 40 percent value might indicate, Howarth notes. The climate system responds much more quickly to reducing methane than to carbon dioxide. If society aggressively controlled carbon dioxide emissions, but ignored methane emissions, the planet would warm to the dangerous 1.5 to 2.0 degree Celsius threshold within 15 to 35 years. By reducing methane emissions, society buys some critical decades of lower temperatures.
“Society needs to wean itself from the addiction to fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” Howarth said. “But to replace some fossil fuels – coal, oil – with another, like natural gas, will not suffice as an approach to take on global warming. Rather, we should embrace the technologies of the 21st century and convert our energy systems to ones that rely on wind, solar and water power.”
Dear sir,
WHO GETS READ by the politicians, TV and radio news readers across the country, print media news re-writers across the country, the science editors of Newsweek, NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle National Geographic and its kin, and the speechwriters of 90% of today’s politicians?
A n (equally-blind-and-dumbed-down-by-propaganda) “physicist” in a “climate science” curriculum whose only funding and publications and promotions and papers is supplied by the government?
Or this staff member of the Cornell PUBLICITY Department, who used to specialize in the “cow” industry?
That the Cornell publicist is a former cow publicity adviser actually puts her in a stronger position to influence policy, to make policy than the so-called scientist. Though both are spreading bullshitte widely and strongly.
We need to arrange a meeting between Howarth and Godzilla, say about an hour after Godzilla has a hearty meal. Possibly the best chance nature can give him to study methane discharge.
But, seriously – if Howarth has a press conference to announce his findings, he would be wise to inhale helium before and during, not methane .
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033114-695328-white-house-to-regulate-cow-flatulence.htm
complicated beasts.
Energy consumption in wind facilities
Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown * The manufacturers of large turbines — for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon — do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.
Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†
yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) — the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle — according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, “power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds”
oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
magnetizing the stator — the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a “large” amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous “cage rotor” that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine’s rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours or noise testing (keeping the blades feathered, ie, quiet)) — it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind.
It seems to me that Progressives are building a case to outlaw NG is an alternative energy source (much like we knew they would). A decade ago, NG was being talked about as a viable, and clean source of energy. But, the minute it became apparent to Progressives that NG production was soaring in the US, NG became no better than coal.
The script now is being written. Scientists will soon conclude studies that show NG even more harmful than coal, and the EPA will use said studies to regulate it into oblivion.
RACookPE1978 says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:19 am
<<<<<That the Cornell publicist is a former cow advisor actually puts her in a stronger position to influence policy, to make policy than the so-called scientist.
No, sir. The practice demonstrates opposite to what you say. Therefore, IPCC has no cow advisor on staff.
<<<<WHO GETS READ by the politicians, TV…
Nobody.
<<<<<Though both are spreading bullshitte widely and strongly.
Agree.
Oh no FRACKING!!! AAArrrrggghhhh Now its causing earthquakes too!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fracking-linked-to-ohio-earthquakes-officials-say/
If you’ve had success with sci-ency mythology over the span of 50 years throughout green history why wouldn’t you just repeat the schtick again?
The truth is there is culture that has bought in to this authority, over a lifetime in most cases. By the time it is debunked another myth will be presented.
I guess I missed something, but where is the data showing the amount of methane escaping from an average bore hole before it is capped. This is just a political document.
Re; george e. smith – one lecture on absorption spectra (PDF) that seems to be a good background for some of the concerns regarding various greenhouse gases.
As for Shawn in High River – both fracking (water injection) and water extraction from underground aquifers is indeed understood to sometimes generate earthquakes.
Methane as a greenhouse gas is a serious danger through global warming!
Quick, extract as much as we can and burn it to convert it to less harmful CO2 and H2O.
I am so tired of the crap science. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are the foundation of organic chemistry. Why is organic chemistry a boogeyman. Blatant IDIOTS!
Edited by Harpo Marx and peer reviewed by the Three Stooges.
anything with the word “sustainability…” in it, well I’m sure most get my drift
Have your fun and ridicule, but the bottom line is that increasing amounts of methane being dumped into the atmosphere is not a good thing.
So what about people passing gas? Should this be outlawed too?
You know, I’ve about reached the point of being past caring what those yahoos say. Reason: Whatever you want to build, somebody doesn’t want you building it there.
I remember the huge fuss that was raised a few years back when a windfarm was built in DeKalb and Lee Counties, near where I live in Illinois. Most people living there didn’t seem to want it, and billboards went up all over the place demanding that the project be stopped. Don’t forget about the issues raised when somebody proposed a windfarm near the Kennedy compound. Oh, no– we’ll have to look at those things!!!
Hydropower. We can get power from water. Great. Now propose building a hydroelectric dam and watch what happens next. I guarantee you’ll have a river full of “Greens” in no time looking for a bird, bug or fish that must be protected from your evil dam, and getting the thing built will require reams of paperwork in dozens of agencies, any one of which can put the ca-bosh on your new hydroelectric dam.
Solar– OK, in order to produce meaningful power you have to have ACRES and ACRES of land available, and storage– in the form of evil batteries– to store power when the sun shines so you’ll have it when the sun doesn’t shine. Sooner or later– bet on sooner rather than later– somebody will figure out that a solar farm has a cost that negatively affects a bird, bug, critter or fish– and you’ll have Greens saying you can’t build that there.
So– I’ve reached the point that I’m tired of hearing it. Whatever you want to build, somebody doesn’t want it there, so we might as well do what has to be done to live on this planet halfway comfortably.
ahhhhh! ANOTHER tipping point. I’m getting tipsy.
I have a degree from Cornell University. There was a time when I was proud of it. For the past 20 years or so, it’s been an embarrassment.
Dear Lord – where to begin?
Evil CO2 is present in the atmosphere in parts-per-million concentrations
Methane CH4 is present in parts-per-billion concentrations, three orders of magnitude lower than CO2. And methane is easily oxidized in normal atmospheric reactions producing more CO2 and H2O. It doesn’t matter what methane’s long-wave radiation-absorption profile is – it’s insignificant.
And even the IPCC agrees most methane in the atmosphere comes from natural sources (termites, organic decay, animal digestion gas, etc)
Jeez! this alarmism is annoying!
To make GeologyJim’s point even more obvious, 1800 ppb is 0.00018% if the atmosphere. This infinitesimal part of the atmosphere is going to drive the whole climate off of a cliff? Really?
So far, the alarmist crowd is batting .000 in their predictions.
Atmospheric methane is leveling off, despite rising use of natural gas. So the methane scare does not compute.
I always find it amusing that Ive never heard talk of all those missing swamps that before humans drained them were releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.
Methane is CH4. When you climb the hydrogen ladder in NATURAL gasses; propane, butane, etc., the more energy from burning them is derived from breaking Hydrogen bonds and the less from Carbon bonds. Burning methane and other NATURAL gasses produces far less CO2/kilocalorie/mole than traditional fossil fuels.
There are numerous parody version (much beloved) of the Cornell Alma Mater that begin:
“High Above Cayuga’s Waters/There’s an awful smell/…… “
with chorus:
“Flush the toilets/ flush the toilets/…..”
Likely appropriate – after all Cornell used to also be called “cow college” by the more urbane of the Ivies. The point being, however, that the various pontifications by Howarth, Ingraffea, etc. (of course) may not represent everyone associated with Cornell, some of whom likely just cringe.
I wonder how the Greenies are going to replace the millions of gas boilers that heat our homes in the short period of time that they saw we have before the world ends. Renewables is all about electricity but we don’t use immersion heaters any more. Switching back will cost billions and take a huge amount of effort. The push to insulate our homes has failed, so why will a plan to replace our boilers work?
And all cars are going to be replaced in that same period of time. Just sheer logistics means that if we went all out and only replaced cars and boilers and did no productive work (including producing food) it would take decades.