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>; Frank Young <fyoung@mountain.net>; ec@osenergy.org; James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>; jim_scon@yahoo.com; Mary@yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 10:51:16 AM
Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater thanpreviously reported.
For those who advocate nuclear power, it is important to recognize the
economics. Based on the most recent analysis I have seen from Duke
University, electricity from a new nuclear power plant is now more
expensive than solar power, and would take a minimum of ten years to
build. Regardless of how you feel about radioactive waste, nuclear
proliferation issues, or fears of melt-downs, solar is cheaper than
nukes. No one will build a nuke without massive federal subsidies and
market guarantees, because every financial analyst who does the math
says the same thing, it is too expensive.
Jim Kotcon
>>> Nicole Good <
nicolegood.wv@gmail.com> 1/28/2011 10:38 AM >>>
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 -----
> *From:* Jim Sconyers <
jim_scon@yahoo.com>
> *To:* James Kotcon <
jkotcon@wvu.edu> ;
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:* 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 >
>