goglspider.blogg.se - All fracked up

$All fracked up$

$all fracked up$

#All fracked up driver#

But it is important because the stakes are enormous. Analysis of more recent measurements is in the works.Ĭonnecting the dots between these different studies is not easy. The paper provides evidence to suggest that fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas systems in 2007-2008 were five times greater than EPA estimates. Researchers combined ground-level and aerial measurements of methane with meteorological data and computer modeling that attributes emissions to specific economic sectors. More recently, a far more comprehensive top down study of domestic methane concentrations was released.Although critics have raised questions about how direct measurements of methane emissions are converted to a percentage leakage rate. Researchers found methane levels that were consistent with leakage rates between 6.2 and 11.7 percent. This study was groundbreaking- but limited to a single field on a single day. In February of last year, researchers took advantage of weather conditions that allowed them to directly measure methane emissions from a natural gas field in Utah. An alternative “top down” approach measures methane concentrations directly.The study thus characterizes the practices at sites operated by participating companies, but not necessarily the industry at large.

$all fracked up$

But only a subset of domestic companies volunteered to participate. This study provides an important data point. Although certain devices were found to have emissions rates that exceeded EPA estimates, the overall findings were generally consistent with EPA numbers. Researchers monitored methane releases from 190 sites.

In September, the first of 16 EDF-sponsored academic studies of methane emissions was released.

In April, the EPA revised its estimates of methane emissions from natural gas production to levels consistent with a leakage rate of 1.65 percent. Total emissions are calculated based on assumed emissions factors which summarize the amount of methane leakage associated with different types of equipment or processes.

The US EPA uses a “bottom up” approach.

The controversy stems from the fact that different approaches to measuring fugitive emissions are yielding different answers: This precludes direct measurement of all sources. Complicated because there are hundreds of thousands of natural gas wells and thousands of miles of pipeline in the U.S. This is a complicated and controversial question. The graphic below (taken from the WRI report) suggests that natural gas loses its relative carbon advantage at a methane leakage rate of between 3-4 percent over a 20 year time horizon: A new study suggests that more methane is leaking out of the natural gas supply system than we previously thought.Ī recent WRI report summarizes the conventional wisdom about the relationship between methane leakage from natural gas production and the relative carbon intensity of gas versus coal. There is heated debate over the extent to which this potential is being realized. These emissions have the potential to eliminate the carbon advantage of gas over coal and oil. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, can escape during extraction, processing, and distribution. Of course, this picture gets much more complicated when you look upstream and broaden your perspective to consider not just carbon dioxide -the most prevalent anthropogenic greenhouse gas- but also “fugitive” methane emissions.

#All fracked up driver#

An important driver of this trend is the substitution of natural gas for coal in electricity generation. Domestic, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have declined 12 percent since the peak in 2007. The figure below suggests that a natural gas fueled transition to a less carbon intensive economy has already begun. It is about half as carbon intensive as coal when burned. Natural gas is being touted as a “game changer” and a “bridge to a low carbon economy.” It is an abundant, made-in-America energy source.

$All fracked up$