Research Suggetst that leaks of methane gas from shale gas production it worse for the climate as the incineration of Kohle.Jim olive / picture libraryIn the calculus of global warming as fuel from coal, natural gas is preferable. This is because, on a basis per joule burn methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, less carbon dioxide than coal combustion produces.
But, earlier this week, the conventional wisdom climate Change1 was published by researchers at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, in a study will argue that over a period of 20 years, the use of natural gas from extracted "Shale gas" shaken, porous rocks that keep the gas pockets in the rocks, in minute coal could be worse for the climate. Their study estimates methane versions of conventional gas production and transport over a period of 20 years, which are less than of gas shale, but could be also significant. Gas Shales however should most of which are U.S. production of natural gas in the future.
The additional emissions arise from shale gas, because the process of extracting gas from shale, hydraulic splitters or Fracking, called some of methane in the atmosphere released. The rocks are by high-pressure injection was destroyed by water to release the methane easier. According to the new study by biochemist Robert Howarth and his colleagues, between 0.6 and 3.2% of the gas in the atmosphere during this process can leak out. And methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
This study is guaranteed. Even before the paper was officially published, it was to denounce the natural gas industry as a "Bunk".
"This study lacks credibility and is full of contradictions," Russell Jones, senior economic adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, based in Washington DC, said on the website of the company. "The main developer is an evolutionary biologist and anti-natural gas activist, not Credentialled, this type of chemical analysis to do."
There are several fundamental problems with the study, said Jones nature: the 20-year time horizon is too short; State-of-the-art natural gas-fired power plants are much more efficient as the coal-fired plants; and the data are of poor quality.
Independent experts agree - part.
The main concern is the 20-year time scale. "It is a break position," says Henry Jacoby, former Co-Director of the program on the science and policy of global change at the Massachusetts Institute of technology in Cambridge. His overall opinion is that the study is "very weak".
The horizon problem results from carbon dioxide emissions try, the primary climate culprit in coal combustion with methane leaks to compare.
Although methane, a powerful greenhouse gas is it breaks in decades, in contrast to carbon dioxide that persists in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. Although methane over 70 times more says Michael Wang, Research Assistant to life cycle of the atmosphere as carbon dioxide over a period of 20 years, on heating energy and environmental impacts of energy production at Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, after 100 years is it only 25 times more potent.
Not everyone is so important. Alan Krupnick on resources for the future, an economic think tank in Washington DC, States that quote controversy because headlines which is media much of which, the study as indicating that natural gas is worse than coal.
", Which is not exactly what the paper says" he notes. "It presents two numbers, one for a period of 20 years and one for a period of 100 years." Krupnick says, the fact that came to a 100-year time scale, coal and natural gas from shale is overlooked in the media fray-still a heavy blow to the latter.
But this is not the only problem.
Jacoby thinks that is the industry's wines into account failure to differences in the energy efficiency of coal fired power plants and the natural gas foul committed about the study. "Howarth is making the wrong comparison", says Jacoby. Instead of greenhouse gas emissions per joule of energy, he says combustion, emissions per kilowatt hour electricity are what should have been - used a statistic, which would have encouraged to natural gas.
ADVERTISING
The methane leaks are still important, but none were experts consulted for this article sure how much methane is lost during production. Krupnick notes, that so many times the rocks were drilled some gas fields have compared to Swiss cheese. "There are all these old holes which can be a way to the atmosphere."
"The an area is, the study earned" Jacoby is true. "The blowback Fracking brings up gas."
But incorrectly or not, experts say the study is a reminder that the incineration is not the only aspect of fuel production and consumption, which should be taken into account in the discussions on emissions. "We sometimes forget that the debate on the basis of the life cycle should always be done," says Krupnick. "I think, the Cornell study is very important to remember that the life is important, not only the direct emissions."
What is concerns about data quality the first Howarth, who admits that there is a problem. "I agree completely, that the data were not what you're looking for." "I hope this will help, refuses the blockade of the industry, open data, so you handle a better can get as we able to do so far been free."
Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R. & Ingraffea, A. ↑ climate change / s10584-011-0061-5 (2011).If you something offensive or inappropriate or that otherwise are not met our conditions or Community guidelines, select you the appropriate "this comment report" Link.Kommentare on this thread are marked according to the time of booking.There are currently no comments.
This is a public forum. Please keep to our community guidelines. You can be controversial, but please you understand personal or offensive and keep it short. Keep in mind that our threads are for feedback and discussion - not for testing publishing, press releases and advertising.
You must be registered with the nature to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user. Be redirected back to this page.
没有评论:
发表评论