Correction: The article originally misstated that methane, at least 21 times more potent than CO2, is the most potent of greenhouse gases. The article should have stated that it is among the more potent greenhouse gases.

12 Comments

1. 1. jtdwyer 01:56 PM 1/26/11

   The article states:
   "The administration and Congress are seeking not just a steady, independent supply of energy, but a fast and drastic reduction in the greenhouse gases associated with climate change."
   
   A lofty goal, but as I understand, after 200 years of accumulation, the current atmospheric co2 levels will not dissipate any time soon, even if humanity eliminated all of its GHG emissions.
   
   The article continues:
   "To crunch its numbers, the EPA calculated the average concentration of methane in the atmosphere over a 100-year period and determined that over that period methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Using that equation, a ton of methane emissions is the equivalent of 21 tons of carbon dioxide."
   
   That's a nice trick. For example, no matter how much methane was released into the atmosphere during the next ten years, the current 100 year rolling average would be primarily determined by the average during the years of 1920-2010. That works for them!
   
   Finally:
   "The EPA now reports that emissions from conventional hydraulic fracturing are 35 times higher than the agency had previously estimated. It also reports that emissions from the type of hydraulic fracturing being used in the nation's bountiful new shale gas reserves, like the Marcellus, are almost 9,000 times higher than it had previously calculated, a figure that begins to correspond with Robert Howarth's research at Cornell."
   
   And that's the good news. The bad news is that it's called 'hydraulic fracturing' because it involves pumping enormous amounts of water and minerals (to protect drill bits, etc.) into a huge area, as I understand often contaminating ground water and potentially even critical fossil aquifers used by many millions for drinking water and agricultural irrigation.
   
   If we run out of potable water we may have to use all of our energy desalinating seawater! Potable water is also an extremely critical resource for this, the largest human population that's ever existed, even considering only the U.S.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. JamesDavis 02:43 PM 1/26/11

   No matter how much lipstick you put on them, coal, oil, and natural gas still remains very dirty pigs. I know we are concerned about nuclear plants' storage system becoming dirty bombs, leaks at the plant radiating whole communities, and the cost is just mind boggling, but if you do not want to consider Geothermal, which has a 1.5% foot print compared to natural gas at 80%, coal at 90%, and nuclear at an undetermined amount, then nuclear is our only choice. Even though a solar array in Arizona is producing more power than a normal nuclear plant and one river hydro plant in New York is producing enough energy for the whole community of 70,000 and it has even been make friendly to fish...and you don't want to consider electric cars being charged from geothermal, hydro, solar, or wave, then lets go with nuclear and keep our fingers crossed that we don't start glowing green and plunging America into another economic crises from the expense of building nuclear plants.
   
   Either way, we should/must eliminate all fossil fuel burning plants and transportation.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Soccerdad 03:45 PM 1/26/11

   Since natural gas is now understood to be more equivalent to coal in its "greenhouse effect", we should decide to just burn more coal for power production. It's cheaper and more plentiful. Besides, gas is more suitable for heating homes and businesses and should be reserved for this use.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Carlyle 01:04 AM 1/27/11

   This magazine has long touted the Green point of view rather than a Scientific stance.
   Now in quick succession we have the article on the detrimental effects on forests caused by growing crops for bio fuel followed by a contra report on gas. Wind & solar surely must follow. Eventually we will get to the only Scientific solution. Nuclear.
   The old ingrained bias is going to die hard however otherwise why regurgitate the old discredited article from the November 2009 issue A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables.
   Pathetic.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. R.Blakely 04:20 PM 1/28/11

   Methane has no effect on climate. Methane absorbs the same photons that are already totally absorbed by water vapor. Therefore, we cannot blame natural gas for any climate effects.
   Natural gas escapes naturally everywhere. If we do not use the gas it will escape anyway.
   We should monitor oxygen instead of CO2 since oxygen also absorbs infrared photons.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. R.Blakely 06:10 PM 1/28/11

   In my last comment, I did not supply a reference. Graphs are available at Wikipedia in the article Greenhouse Gas. The graphs show that methane absorbs photons that water vapor totally absorbs already. The graphs also show that oxygen absorbs photons, and so we should measure it. CO2 absorbs all 15-micron photons and so it cannot cause an increased greenhouse effect. This means that burning natural gas or oil or coal will not alter climate. Reduction in oxygen caused by burning fossil fuels will reduce oxygen-caused greenhouse effects and thus cause cooling to counter warming.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Dr. Strangelove in reply to R.Blakely 04:02 AM 2/1/11

   Methane and CO2 will still absorb infrared photons bec. there is almost unlimited supply from the sun. White light when absorbed by earth's surface infrared is radiated. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas but we don't worry about it bec. it's natural and not man-made. Maybe we should worry. 2% increase in humidity has same radiative forcing as all CO2 emitted since 1750.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. bucketofsquid 10:51 AM 2/2/11

   Eventually the structure of modern society is going to have to change. Public utilities are going to have to focus on energy storage just as much as energy generation. Fossil fuels are going to slide into decreased production, even with improved extraction methods.
   
   I almost never agree with JamesDavis or Soccerdad but on this topic I'm in total accord with them. It is long past time to stop messing around and start a real, meaningful effort to eliminate fossil fuels entirely.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. eco-steve 04:19 AM 2/3/11

   The solution to the problem is often said to be CCS. But as CCS will not be applied generally for at least 50 years, we should decarbonise natural gas now using hydrocarbon pyrolysis. This process removes the carbon from methane as coke, leaving clean hydrogen as an energy source. The inert coke can safely go into landfill. The Technology needs to be developped at an industrial scale, but it is cheap and non-polluting.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. syhprum 03:31 AM 2/13/11

    The accident at three mile island although causing damage only to the power station cost far more lives than the Chernobyl incident.
    The Hysterical over reaction delayed the introduction of clean nuclear power in the USA for at least fourty years leading to the loss of inumerable lives due to polution from coal fired power stations and global warming.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Dorje1428 01:50 PM 3/13/11

    It needs to be remembered that the biomass(corn, fodder beets, etc used to make ethanol, is perfect starch-free feed for cattle, stopping the livestock's methane production, and using the same resources twice! A fact not talked about much by the opponents of ethanol!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Dorje1428 05:48 PM 3/13/11

    How long doe it take to screen Comments? I made one regarding ethanol and it seems to have disappeared.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this