From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Not only did we come perilously close top blackouts this week, but our reserves of gas are also dangerously low:
.
Plunging temperatures and high demand for gas fired power stations have reduced UK winter gas storage to concerningly low levels.
The UK’s gas storage is under pressure this winter as the UK battles both extreme cold and high gas prices. The ongoing colder-than-usual conditions in the UK combined with the end of Russian gas pipeline supplies through Ukraine on 31 December 2024 has meant that gas inventory levels across the UK are down. As of the 9th of January 2025, UK storage sites are 26% lower than last year’s inventory at the same time, leaving them around half full. This means the UK has less than a week of gas demand in store.
Gas storage was already lower than usual heading into December as a result of the early onset of winter. Combined with stubbornly high gas prices, this has meant that it has been more difficult to top up storage over Christmas.
The situation is echoed across Europe. By 7 January 2025, despite many countries mandating minimum storage levels ahead of winter, European storage was at 69% capacity, down from 84% at the same time the previous year. The UK’s total gas storage capacity is around 10 per cent or less than in France, Germany, or the Netherlands.
As energy demand spikes due to the freezing weather, the UK has seen a particular strain on its gas storage. Despite being full ahead of winter, current gas inventory at Rough, the country’s largest gas storage site, which is operated by Centrica, is 20% lower than at the same time last year. Rough has played a crucial role so far this winter by supplying almost 420 million cubic meters (mcm) of gas since early November, enough to heat three million homes every day.
Natural gas still supplies over a third of the UK’s energy, seven times as much as wind and solar:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes-2024
But in winter months, gas consumption can double or even triple from summer time, as power demand increases and heating is switched on.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gas-section-4-energy-trends#full-publication-update-history
.
Average gas consumption over the year averages around 175 mcm/day, but the forecast for today is 363 mcm:
https://data.nationalgas.com/gas-system-status
Little wonder then that gas stocks get depleted. As of yesterday, we had 18752 of natural gas and 10365 GWh of liquified gas in store, enough for seven day’s consumption. This however is misleading, as it implies there will be no gas supplied.
https://data.nationalgas.com/gas-system-status
What is perhaps a more meaningful indicator is that we get about 200 mcm/day from the North Sea, both own production and import from Norway. This can reasonably be regarded as a secure supply.
With demand running at 363 mcm/day, that means we need to import 163 mcm/day of LNG, a big increase on the annual average of 50 mcm/day. Our gas storage of about 2600 mcm therefore represents sixteen days of LNG imports.
If we have not got enough gas in storage, we have to pay through the nose for imports in winter, when prices peak.
But of much greater concern is what will happen when North Sea gas production drops away. Demand for natural gas will still remain high in winter for many years to come – we still need it to heat our homes and generate electricity in weeks like this one. Banning further North Sea development, as Miliband wants, will simply make us ever more reliant on imported LNG, something that will not only cost money but also endanger our energy security.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Too bad they dumped coal in 2014.
The irony being that under the North Sea there are huge coal seams, enough to fulfil our needs for centuries and make Britain an energy giant. Difficult to recover maybe, but the technology exists to ‘gasify’ it in place.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
Let’s do it – especially now that the concept of Net Zero is finally declared dead
There are several abandoned opencast mines closeby, only closed because of lack of demand as the coal turbines shut. Easy enough to start them up again but the last coal turbines that were in use last year in the UK will no doubt blown up for the virtue seeking publicity. Poland has lots of coal mines still, the coal I burn in my multi fuel stove comes from Columbia.
Columbian Black Blow!!
Perfect storm?
It hasn’t been that cold.
This winter has been nothing exceptional.
The problem only arose when Labour appointed a ‘Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero’.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security does not want energy security. He wants wind turbines.
Yep – nothing exceptional, but a little extraordinary for the Midlands.
This is just pitiful. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove all wind and solar from the grid.This is not a complex issue, wake up.
Add what works and eliminate what doesn’t!
Renewables require government funding to make a profit and produce nothing useful.
Stay Warm…
Frack on!!!
But was the UK actually getting any gas from Russia?
Not a lot really. Mainly Norway and Qatar, and the USA
Shutting down the pipeline will have no effect other than raising prices across the market!
If Ol’ Joe Brib’em had wanted to hurt the Russian economy he would have stepped up US production, and exports, of oil and natural gas. Russia finances their war machine off their sales of commodities, just as the US arms manufacturers finance their businesses off a forever-war model!
And marxo-democrat Bidenistas finance themselves from the kickbacks.
It was a small amount, more by accident than by design but the UK gas market is linked to the European market in price terms. The perverse fact is Europe would not have survived the second Winter of the war in Ukraine without the UK’s LNG terminals where the gas was off loaded in the summer and sent by gas line to Europe where it was stored when the price was low. During the following Winter some came back to the UK but at much higher prices.
The truly sad thing is that soon there will be significant numbers of deaths from this insane energy policy.
All completely avoidable.
Remember the names of the politicians responsible for this.
Too many of the idiots to remember them all. Reminds me of the fifties when coal was still rationed after the war and we had MacMillan telling us we’d never had it so good.
You must be a few years older than me, Jeff. Although I remember the 50s, I don’t recall coal rationing. I must have been a tad too young.
Interestingly, there is a teletext article about a guy, rescuing an old door from a tip, he removed a panel, to find a note written in 47, where it mentioned no coal, blackouts etc.
Well, that’s why we got rid of Boris Johnson, and the prime minister at the time, Carrie Johnson. Then Rishi Sunak. Just a few more to go. The petition to remove the rest of them got 3,025,948 signatures. The government, of course, treated it with total contempt, ignoring the petition (“[] the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out []”) and saying “[] Our full focus is on staying in power for the full five years”. Actually, those weren’t their exact words, but they are the printable part of their exact meaning.
Centrica just happens to want to invest billions in increased gas storage, and is currently wanting assurances from the government that it will be worth their while.
The British government led by Starmer and Milliband will ensure that Centrica are told that it will be pointless to invest money in gas, because gas will be phased out in a reduction to Net Zero.
The assurance they want is that the hydrogen economy is go, hence the storage capacity they spend £2Bn on will get guaranteed long term use when the natural gas is cut off!
I read in a Facebook post that you can use 3 tonnes of hydrogen to capture 1 tonne of carbon and this converts the hydrogen into a form which is far, far easier to store , transport and use.
Carbon capture and vastly reduced costs of storing and using hydrogen!
If this is true, it will be a massive breakthrough. Scientists should be working on it now.
That is correct! It converts the carbon into methane, CH4, the primary constituent of natural gas. And when you burn it, you’ll release CO2 back into the atmosphere. Why not use the hydrogen directly as fuel and forego the inefficiency of reacting it with carbon?
Hydrogen molecular used with Carbon produces a gas that’s easier to handle, easier to store, easier to transport and doesn’t promote embrittlement
Hydrogen embrittlement
Hydrogen embrittlement is traditionally defined as the loss of ductility that many metals exhibit due to the presence of hydrogen atoms within the metal lattice (Martin et al., 2020). From: Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2022.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/favicon-tbn?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQrfJsyTuuKuuGxiyOaDg74ilEHohrJQbkL2ewk_2YldnohKpw4tTO-dNH2dTG_AyFvmFRjeGS8nOvINV3mxKrN9-9L5GCvwstOmjSKbD1hxohttps://www.sciencedirect.com
Hydrogen Embrittlement – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Now that reads rather funny. Hmmm
I’m guessing /s
But just in case.
Something very wrong in your calculations. Where is the energy coming from to strip the Carbon from the Oxygen in the CO2? And similarly for the Hydrogen from its parent chemical, (water?).
If we are to start with pure Hydrogen and pure Carbon, why not just use both as a fuel now and avoid all the waste?
Trouble with that is the hydrogen economy is going nowhere fast.
Electrolyser projects in Canada and Germany have been cancelled.
Hydrogen bus projects in Liverpool, Glasgow and Montpelier scrapped as the buses are as much as 6 times more expensive as battery operated ones.
Hydrogen trains in Germany and the Netherlands being phased out because they are far more expensive to run.
How would hydrogen or electric firefighting vehicles work in LA in the present disastrous situation?
I feel so sorry for the people there and the way they’ve been let down by politicians.
Just yesterday I saw some articles about an electric fire truck in LA having some problems. Today, I can’t find it at all.
Before they can phase out gas they have to persuade over 22m homes to switch from gas to electricity which is around four times more expensive. Anyone with half a brain, except Miliband, knows that is not going to happen soon and certainly not by 2030.
It’s Sunday, and Coventry has a blackout. 10 am.
Anyone rebellious enough to be in church deserves to be cold and in the dark! Ain’t Marxism fun!?
The present winter in the UK is a cold one, or at least there is a quite cold couple of weeks at the moment, but its definitely not unusually severe. If you look back at the kinds of cold winters that occur every couple of decades in the UK you can see this.
There seems to be a general fantasy in the UK climate coverage in the media, led of course by BBC and Guardian, that the UK climate ought to be temperate, mild and constant with no very hot summers or cold winters. In fact the UK is an island between a large continental landmass and a great ocean, with a hot desert to its south and the Arctic to the north. Inevitably, weather patterns being as chaotic as they are, this leads to great if chaotic variability. There are low wind seasons, there are occasional massive snowfalls, occasional long very hot summers, some summers with almost no sun and lots of rain, others which are, in the Met Office’s term, ‘barbecue summers’. Rainfall varies wildly. Some winters are very mild, others very cold.
The usual reaction to these perfectly normal and expected events is a moral panic. People are advised not to go out in summer weathers to which they migrate in droves to the Med for every summer, to wrap up warmly – in tones which would be more suited to a mother talking to an eight year old than a government talking to its adult citizen voters. In temperatures that they fly in droves to France and Switzerland for, for skiing holidays.
As for the Net Zero agenda? Its hopeless. There is no way to generate enough electricity to take the added demand from heating and transport from wind and solar. There is not even any way to supply existing demand from them. And if there were any way to generate it from wind and solar, the transmission network, including the local grid, does not have enough capacity to deliver it where its needed.
The thing the UK is heading for, without any dissent from any of the traditional political parties, is a really cold winter, on the lines of some of the above listed ones. At that point the country will be faced with national blackouts and running out of gas, and of course EVs that run out of juice rapidly and cannot be recharged.. People will die, particularly the old.
The problem with running out of gas is that restart is a horror. How do you know there are not appliances with open feeds? The problem with a national blackout, even partial, is that it will be cold start.
I know this all sounds improbably doom laden. But a few years ago it also sounded totally inconceivable that the UK would come within a couple of hours of rolling national blackouts because of a wind calm. But it did, on Wednesday, and Miliband and the whole UK political class are undeterred and still driving for the cliff at max speed.
Their fantasy is that 90GW of wind and 40GW of solar will supply demand which, from the transport and heating conversion to electricity, will rise well north of 60GW. With no plans for supplying the intermittency periods. It cannot be done.
And its futile: its in pursuit of a goal which, even could they achieve it, would have zero effect on the global climate that is its supposed justification.
A few other winters stick in my mind, 70/1 where we actually had a white Christmas.
Funnily enough, it was around 82, that it dawned on me that the climate was warming, as the canal no longer froze over.
86,when the snow stayed for around 2 months.
and another in late 96.
Mind you, those instances that stick in my mind, might have been just local, rather than national.
Remember the good, old days of Frost Fairs on the Thames? That’s their Utopia, writ large!
We are participants in, and witnesses to the most predicted and avoidable catastrophe ever visited upon us here in the UK.
The crime is multiplied when you remember the energy needed to keep us warm and safe in our homes is all around our national lands in the form off coal oil and gas.
Our political class influenced solely by international opinion have consciously chosen to sacrifice the old and the weak to conform with international priority.
That international priority only applying to western leading nations oddly enough and not even scientifically justified.
The Net Zero policies forced upon us are are going to do known harm, yet still they are advanced.
The political priorities being driven into place are nothing more than the wild insane musings of a death cult/
The time to sharpen the pitch forks is approaching.
Can a politician be sued for things said outside parliament – I think they can. I wonder if that is something that could get round the need for pitchforks – but best to acquire a few just in case.
Governments seem to reach a sociopathic critical mass, when the number of crooks and criminals gets so high that they can only go down one of two roads; total subjugation of the people, or violent revolution! The American Revolution was a bit different in that they rebelled against the Crown before there was widespread tyranny. By modern standards it was a mostly peaceful revolution!
From the UK Telegraph today
Britain’s prices are nearly 50 per cent above the International Energy Agency median for industrial electricity and 80 per cent above the median for domestic users. Our businesses pay almost four times as much as Americans for power and our consumers three times. This is hugely concerning when Labour’s net zero plans will see Britain using much more electricity for cars and household heating, irrespective of it being far more expensive than gas.
Following its launch in October, NESO released its Winter Outlook report which forecast peak electricity demand would be 44.4 gigawatts (GW) at any one time. But last week saw demand for electricity close to 50 GW. At this critical time, output from wind turbines had fallen away and there were problems importing power from Europe on which Britain is becoming overdependent.
The crunch forced NESO to pay huge sums to fire up gas fired power stations to cover the gap; at one stage on Wednesday night it was paying one 30 year old power plant £5,500 per megawatt hour for just 400 megawatts (MW) of capacity between 4 and 7pm. This is 50 times the recent market price. Overall the scheme cost £2.3 million per hour.
The political class in the UK has thought about this, has had plenty of time and occasions to step back from it, and has decided to go ahead regardless. Barking mad the lot of them.
And Nick Stokes will show up any time now to tell us that wind saves money because the fuel is free. Right, including when it doesn’t blow.
“And Nick Stokes will show up any time now to tell us that wind saves money because the fuel is free.”
Or, to the point of this article, it saves gas. Every MWh from wind is a MWh you didn’t need to burh gas for, intermittent or not.
Every straw a drowning man clutches at saves a lifeboat for other people.
Say that when your lights keep going dark and the heat pump fails to turn on during a cold dark winter night because of your proffered Intermittency then you will see just how different a MWh of wind/solar is compared to a Reliable MWh of Gas and/or Nuclear.
But, Nick, you know full well that is not the policy that is being sold to the public or attempted to be implemented.
I don’t believe that installing wind and solar to supplement a gas or coal driven power generation system, with the aim of lowering fuel costs, is financially viable. I don’t believe that you can show that any lowering of fuel costs pays for the cost of building, running and connecting the wind and solar. I keep asking for a pointer to proper NPV studies of this, and never get any. In fact, I have never found any quantification of how much fuel you would in fact save.
But that argument is at least halfway reasonable, its a plausible case for study. It is feasible to install some wind and try and use it to save fuel. Whether it makes economic sense or not, it is at least possible to do.
What is actually being proposed and implemented in the UK is something quite different. Its to install 90GW of wind and 40GW of solar, with the aim of supplying 95% of demand in 2030, when demand will be north of 60GW.
UK already has a peak of over 47GW, and that is before the great EV and heat pump conversion.
This is not possible to do. As we can see in the last week. We know that by 2030 almost all nuclear will be out of service, and we know that the gas plant is reaching end of life in the next couple of years, with no plans for replacement. You cannot reliably meet today’s demand without dispatchable generation of 50GW. The only way to get it is conventional. But there are no plans to build that. You cannot, with UK weather patterns, restrict gas to 5%.
What happened on Wednesday was not reliably meeting the 47GW demand, it was a near miss of a train crash.
I tend to look at these things in a rather detached and technocratic fashion, but this is starting to evoke a general anger, which I an starting to share. People with no skin in the game are pretending that this craziness, the real policy plans I summarized above, is both possible and cost effective, when the evidence that comes in all the time about real world weather patterns and demand patterns make it clear that it is not.
When a developed country comes a couple of hours from blackouts because of wind calm, policy is not fit for purpose. When this idiotic and dangerous situation occurs because the entire political class approved it, they as a class are not fit for purpose. And that is before they turn off the gas and the nuclear, and raise demand. This isn’t just mistaken, its wrong, its dishonest, its going to kill people. Mainly the old and poor. And crash the economy. And its not going to do anything about climate.
[Why do I say a couple of hours? Because two small power stations, which went offline a couple of hours after the peak, stayed online through it. Had they gone off two or three hours earlier, it would have been blackouts. . Source, Lord Frost writing in the Telegraph. And this is with the current gas plant and nuclear plant going full bore. What happens when they are turned off and demand raised? But don’t worry, we are leading the world, thinking of the children, saving the planet…!]]
The plans for heat pump conversion are going nowhere fast and the industry is telling the Government that although the latter still has its fingers in its ears.
Indeed almost 40% of people training to install heat pumps don’t go on to work in the industry.
In 2023 less than 40,000 heat pumps were installed.
There are over 22 million homes on the gas grid in the country and no incentive for people to spend thousands of pounds, on top of the government grant, to install a heat pump (British Gas says the average cost on top to its customers in 2023 was £5690) and then spend 4 times more for their heating.
Yes, and you can eat dirt to stave off hunger pangs and save the grain supply.
The fact remains that wind and solar are situational supplements at best, but they are being forced as stand-alone modalities justified by a manufactured fantasy “crisis”. Trying to rationalize the deceit is pathetic.
Burning gas for power is useful. Intermittent power is not. There is no climate crisis.
Nick gives up on one lie and latches onto a new one.
The problem is that week in and week out, renewables don’t save in fossil fuels. The reason for this is because fossil fuel plants can’t be ramped up and down instantaneously.
The result is that they run constantly and the extra energy that is created has to be dumped, at great cost
Beyond that, there is no reason to “save” fossil fuels.
Nick, you made the mistake of equating MWh produced with cubic meters of gas consumed to produce that MWh of electricity. The peaker plants used to make up for drops in wind power use at least 50% more gas to produce a MWh than a Combined Cycle Combustion (Gas) Turbine plant. This isn’t taking into account the gas saved by not building wind turbines.
Peaker plants are rapidly being surpassed by batteries.
Building wind turbines is a (small) one time cost. In energy terms the cost of building is dwarfed by the energy produced over a lifetime.
Batteries, those items that supply power for a few hours before going flat.
If you thought that peaker plants only run for a couple of hours then that would be fine. However, they often run for days at a time.
Do batteries provide energy for days at a time, (at rated capacity)?
Come on Nick, it’s a simple question. Unless you have proof, I’ll stick with the advertising documents that the battery suppliers throw out. The answer is NO, batteries will not provide peaker power for more than a couple of hours, (at rated capacity).
So basically, a wind lull will not be served by batteries for the evening peak, NOR the morning peak, NOR the industrial demands during the day.
And that’s LONG before we start talking about INSTALLED capacity. Batteries, as far as the grid magnitudes are concerned are useless. Or do you have an example where a battery system exists that can meet/supply the grid demand for a day. The answer is NO. They can’t even meet a tiny percentage of the demand.
“Batteries, those items that supply power for a few hours before going flat”
They run for a few hours before needing recharge. Demand peaks are followed by demand lulls.
The reason to have peakers is that tey have fast response, despite cost. Batteries are faster, and cover until conventional generation fires up.
With a society demanding 100% EV adoption/replacement of ICVs some 42,000,000 EVs will be in the UK in the coming years with 1/7th recharging daily (provided all are recharged weekly). 6,000,000 EVs recharging 60-80KWh batteries overnight will create a demand peak of 300GWh – 420GWh every night just for personal vehicle recharging. Then there’s Fleet Vehicles, Emergency Vehicles, Commercial Vehicles, Delivery Vehicles etc. that will also be recharging Nightly. Especially Emergency Vehicles that can’t stop and recharge enroute to crimes, accidents or fires.
Batteries to not make great reliable back-up for recharging transportation.
Battery capacities degrade by as much as 50% in the cold.
Heaters used to keep batteries warm use electricity that then is unavailable to the grid.
They are eliminating conventional power generators. Batteries deplete in hours, not days or weeks.
1 MWhr from wind uses about 10X the materials as 1 MWhr from nuclear, so we would better off building nuclear than wind. This does not include the materials needed for the battery back-up needed for wind. In addition, peaker plants and CCGT baseload are both synchronous generation, which leads to better grid stability.
As engineer Ian pointed out, peaker plants don’t have hard limits on how many hours they can provide back-up.
Nuclear plants have a lot less visual impact than wind turbines for a given capacity.
Nuclear is the highest density energy source with 2200MW generation needing 12 acres of land.
Wind requires up to 40 acres per MW so would need 8800 acres to produce the same 2200MW
Solar requires significantly more land.
Topaz Solar operates a 550MW site on 4700 acres producing 143 MW due to the 26% capacity factor.
Solar would need 72,300 acres to achieve the same 2200MW BUT only from 10am until 2pm with ZERO Capacity from 4pm until 8am
That Nuclear plant would produce power 24/7/365 with 2 weeks off every 2 years for refueling hence the 98% capacity factor.
Wind should be 88,000 acres for 2200MW
“Building wind turbines is a (small) one time cost.”
Wow! They last forever? Who knew?
Nuclear can last as much as 80 years while wind might last 20-30 years and Solar may need replacement after only 15 years…or the next Hail Storm.
Wind will be replaced 2-4 times and solar up to 6+ times over the lifespan of Nuclear. Each time subject to inflation so 20-30 years of inflated cost increases for each subsequent replacement
MTBF for a wind generator is about 4.5 years.
Small? Then I suppose those subsidies are used to buy donuts for the maintenance crew.
Where I am this is the kind of wintry weather we normally and often have in January wintertime UK. It is just that we have been spoiled for a few years by milder conditions prompting the ‘alarmist warming’ agenda. Perhaps they have helped us to be lulled into a false sense of security in the manner of ‘the warming planet’ rather than facing up to the reality of all weather – it is random, often highly unpredictable, and something that very few humans ever master unless their survival depends upon it. More importantly our energy providers need to be much more certain of being adequately and safely able to provide all UK users with what they need. Better still sack the odious and useless Miliband and Starmer and get some brains in Downing Street.
High Costs/kWh of Offshore Wind
Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems, and
Forcing utilities to pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind systems, is suicidal economic insanity.
New York State signed offshore contracts at 15 c/kWh, wholesale, in desperation, because they had to show some “progress” after all the noise the woke-aholics had been making.
.
Excluded costs, at 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level:
.
1) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers, about 2 c/kWh
2) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
3) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked, to provide the electricity not produced by W/S systems, to meet demand, about 2 c/kWh.
4) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced, about 1 c/kWh
5) Disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
.
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
Sounds like it’s time for another Little Ice Age.
Didn’t we use to have around 3 months of gas storage capability?
Must have been years ago, the Rough facility downgrading due to lack of maintenance due to lack of Govt assurances has been going on for a Decade. Millivolt may own the problem now and his plans will make it worse but what has happened recently would have happened if the Tories had got back in instead of Labour. At least they had a plan for more Gas turbines but that was still years away.
Not to worry. The recent import of millions of Islamist ‘Newcomers’ will provide “new ideas” to solve it.
Correction: perfect policy storm
Why oh why do cities in the West not make more use of *wastewater gas* (sewage gas) as a source of energy? I have wondered about this for decades!
The “feedstock” (sewage) is free and effectively infinite. You can hardly get a better energy source than that!
I think most wastewater treatment plants could add a sewage-gas production plant on without many problems.
Even better – the feedstock already goes to where the energy will be used – in major cities.
Little need for extensive new gas pipelines.
AFAIK there *are* a few examples of gas being generated by sewage around the world but I think a lot more use could be made of a resource that is literally just going to waste at the moment.
Anyway – just my 2c worth…… 🙂
But, but, but methane is a MAJOR greenhouse gas.
/sarc