Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday October 09 2016, @11:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the bovine-flatulence dept.

According to a new study, the fossil fuel industry's natural gas leakage rate has declined, but that has been counteracted by increases in production:

Yesterday, a study led by Stefan Schwietzke, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said that a detailed study of atmospheric samples, some taken from ancient ice cores and others taken recently, shows that the leakage rate from natural gas production has declined in recent decades, despite a sharp increase in natural gas production and distribution.

While accountants and engineers in the oil and gas industry may take some comfort in the finding, the net effect is that the atmosphere still sustained damage, according to the author of the study. "All the efficiency gains have been almost 100 percent counterbalanced by increased production," Schwietzke explained in an interview, referring to recent company efforts to find and minimize leaks. The study used carbon isotopes, a kind of chemical fingerprint, to identify sources of methane leaks and found that fossil fuel industry emissions plus natural geological methane seepage have not increased over time. However, it also concluded that measurements used by previous studies appear to have underestimated the size of these emissions. They are "60 to 110% greater than current estimates," the study said.

Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database (DOI: 10.1038/nature19797) (DX)

Here we re-evaluate the global methane budget and the contribution of the fossil fuel industry to methane emissions based on long-term global methane and methane carbon isotope records. We compile the largest isotopic methane source signature database so far, including fossil fuel, microbial and biomass-burning methane emission sources. We find that total fossil fuel methane emissions (fossil fuel industry plus natural geological seepage) are not increasing over time, but are 60 to 110 per cent greater than current estimates owing to large revisions in isotope source signatures. We show that this is consistent with the observed global latitudinal methane gradient. After accounting for natural geological methane seepage, we find that methane emissions from natural gas, oil and coal production and their usage are 20 to 60 per cent greater than inventories. Our findings imply a greater potential for the fossil fuel industry to mitigate anthropogenic climate forcing, but we also find that methane emissions from natural gas as a fraction of production have declined from approximately 8 per cent to approximately 2 per cent over the past three decades.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by CoolHand on Monday October 10 2016, @12:37AM

    by CoolHand (438) on Monday October 10 2016, @12:37AM (#412243) Journal
    It's the cow's, not the industry [eenews.net]! Quit eating cows!

    The cattle industry topped the natural gas sector as the primary methane-emitting source in the United States in 2012, even as greenhouse gas emissions from the nation overall decreased by 3.3 percent.

    #teamvegan

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 10 2016, @12:52AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 10 2016, @12:52AM (#412244) Homepage Journal

    That's it, 50% pay cut for you. Damned veggiefarter.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday October 10 2016, @01:05AM

      by CoolHand (438) on Monday October 10 2016, @01:05AM (#412248) Journal
      haha... I knew I'd get some people's proverbial goat.. It's worth it for my veggies! haha
      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Monday October 10 2016, @12:54AM

    by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 10 2016, @12:54AM (#412245) Journal

    Following the link you provided [eenews.net] makes the point painfully clear that it is for real. Here's a bit more context:

    The latest inventory finds that the U.S. emitted 6,501 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) of greenhouse gases in 2012, which is 4 percent higher than in 1990. Fossil fuel combustion, especially for electricity generation and transport, contributed 94 percent of the total emissions.

    The oil and gas sector was a small but significant contributor. Its major problem remained methane, which is 20 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The natural gas sector released 127.1 million metric tons CO2e in methane between 2011 and 2012.

    That was less than the emissions from the beef cattle industry. Enteric fermentation in the rumen of cows released 141 million metric tons CO2e of methane in 2012.

    EPA also revised previous years' inventories to make the cattle industry the top methane emitter since 2009. The 2011 inventory had erroneously found the natural gas sector was the largest methane emitter in the U.S. ( EnergyWire [eenews.net] , April 16, 2013).

    And here I was thinking that my 'dept' line was just a joke:

    from the bovine-flatulence dept.

    Now, I not only have to look for low-fat beef, now I also need to look for low-fart beef. =)

    --
    Wit is intellect, dancing.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @01:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @01:00AM (#412246)

      At the risk of being downvoted as a troll, I have to say... The biggest methane emissions are coming out of D.C.'s B.S. factory.

    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday October 10 2016, @03:31AM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday October 10 2016, @03:31AM (#412292)

      Why convert methane into CO2 Equivalents? Doesn't Methane have a shorter atmospheric life-time as well?

      • (Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:04AM

        by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:04AM (#412777) Journal

        Why convert methane into CO2 Equivalents? Doesn't Methane have a shorter atmospheric life-time as well?

        They do not actually convert the methane to CO2. My recollection is a bit fuzzy right now, but ISTR that methane is on the order of 20-times as effective at trapping heat compared to CO2. Numbers are from memory -- cannot give a real citation on that one, sorry.

        --
        Wit is intellect, dancing.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @08:52AM (#412356)

    > #teamvegan

    If you're going to chose a diet that is unfit for humans, why not go all out and kill yourself right now? It's also better for the planet.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 10 2016, @07:24PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 10 2016, @07:24PM (#412589)

      Well, killing someone causes decomposition which releases CO2 ... once.
      The methane from the cows I eat as juicy yummy steak is a renewable resource!