« Is power really ending? A preview of Moisés Naím’s new book | Main | I was wrong about the euro ... but that turns out to be a bad thing for Europe »

March 19, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Glad I could help with this one.

The amusing flipside of this is if we tap, mine and remove the hydrates(*), then they can't naturally destabilize. Which they do. So, if we can do this safely, we're making the world a slightly safer place.

Whatever heating from the Ch4 will not disappear quickly though.

Its a low likelihood.

The capture ratio is really important. For that matter, what is it for fracking?

Fracking has around 91% capture.

Checking on the calthrates.

AFAIK, that 9% figure for fracking is from one NOAA study in Utah. People across the river at HKS don't believe it travels; they stick to the EPA estimate of 2.4%. If the NOAA study is confirmed outside of the Uintah Basin, then we'll have a bombshell that you can be sure I will blog about.

Baseline to be better than coal is around 3½ percent.

Query: how is it a bombshell?

Clathrates are a lot worse, iirc. I saw a number once and I even had it on the blog somewhere, but...I can't seem to find it. Its probably before I started using key words.

If methane leakage goes hits 3½% of production, then natural gas becomes as bad as coal in terms of force heating the Earth.

If leakage goes to 9%, then not only do the greenhouse benefits of switching from coal to natural gas go out the window, but the U.S. becomes a significantly worse emitter.

It would be a bombshell, and bad. I do not know if anyone as calculated yet just how bad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories