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