One of the items many leave out of life cycles is building the equipment that removes the coal or building the equipment it takes to transport the coal along with the creation of oil and gas to run this equipment. This alone increases the amount of CO2 released by coal 200 to 300%.
 
In short most gas wells require less then a 1 year operation cycle to drill and frack the well, coal requires this on a daily bases.  
 
Planet Green had an excellent piece on this but I can not remember what it was called. I believe it was one of the rebuttals they do when the show films such as Gasland.
 
Another item I look at when comparing electric to gas is heating. Gas is at the best accounting for transportation about 95% efficient, while electric to heat with at the very best amounts to about 12%. This is when you consider how much coal it takes to burn and make the electricity, transportation losses, and heat appliance efficiency losses.
 
So am I a fan of gas? No. But when one looks at life cycle cost one needs to look at the whole picture.
 
And in short many of these inefficient plants that are listed are the retrofits that was done to coal fired operations. These are at this time producing electricity in several plants in WV and I know of 3 in the Charleston area, 1 in Huntington, 1 in Wood county. We can say they are producing a lot more CO2 then they could be but what would the picture be if they still burnt coal?

Kevin Fooce
fooce@hotmail.com
304-751-1448 work
304-675-6687 home
304-593-2875 cell





 
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:54:02 -0800
From: jim_scon@yahoo.com
To: nicolegood.wv@gmail.com; fyoung@mountain.net; jkotcon@wvu.edu; dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; lesleemac1@frontier.com; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com
Subject: [EC] nuclear, gas, or coal

Energy can definitely get complicated! I've been rabidly and actively anti-nuke for more than 2 decades - helped get a waste transport ban in WV, campaigned against it in NH - but pressure is definitely building for nuclear. Unfortunately, most of the proponents neglect life-cycle issues, which are massive, from mining and mining waste to spent fuel rod disposal. It is true that the actual act of generating the electric power - barring meltdowns and other pesky safety concerns - is cleaner for nuclear than say coal.
 
Jim Sconyers
jim_scon@yahoo.com
304.698.9628

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.


From: Nicole Good <nicolegood.wv@gmail.com>
To: Frank Young <fyoung@mountain.net>; jim_scon@yahoo.com; James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>; dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee McCarty <lesleemac1@frontier.com>; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 10:38:05 AM
Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater thanpreviously reported.

So here's a debate I got into last night: would you prefer natural gas or nuclear?

From what I gather, if fugitive emissions were captured and all the best technology put in place, gas would be twice as clean as coal? It's just that that's currently not the case.  I'm with Frank on the support for regulation.

*Nicole


On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Frank Young <fyoung@mountain.net> wrote:
Solution: capture the would be fugitive emissions of methane!  And after all, once captured, those too are marketable.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater thanpreviously reported.

Makes one wondr about all the media stories that contain the seemingly obligatory reference that "natural gas is much cleaner than coal."
 
Jim Sconyers
jim_scon@yahoo.com
304.698.9628

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.


From: James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>
To: dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee McCarty <lesleemac1@frontier.com>; Nicole Good <nicolegood.wv@gmail.com>; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 12:26:24 PM
Subject: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater than previously reported.

The initial press story I saw was Tuesday, but it appears the story may
be a couple months old by now.  It suggests that methane emissions from
Marcellus wells may be 9000 times greater than previously estimated.

Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated
by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m.

The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as
a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new
research
by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding
of
the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas
production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a
quick
and easy solution to climate change.

More available at:
http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doubt



The actual EPA report (Technical Support Document:  Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems)  was apparently released in November and is
available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf


In particular, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 8-10) describe the updates to the
emissions factors.  Those referencing "unconventional wells" represent
some changes that are truly astronomical.  If each Marcellus well is, in
fact, leaking 177 tons of methane per well each time they hydro-frack,
then that makes them significant sources of emissions.

Finally, the story is explained in more lay terms in the blog at the
site below:
http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-gas-leakage-rates


I recommend reading all three of these, as I think this is a game
changer for the natural gas industry.  It certainly changes the game on
the Wetzel air permit appeal.

Jim Kotcon

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC@osenergy.org
http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec



_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC@osenergy.org
http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec



_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec