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-doub...
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-g...
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
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-doub...
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-g...
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
I would argue that if we consider the "life cycle" from extraction through burning and including fugitive emissions that compared to coal produced via mountaintop removal or any form of strip mining, gas is much, much cleaner and more environmentally acceptable. That said, I support and demand responsible regulation of the gas production industry.
Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ; jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
Solution: capture the would be fugitive emissions of methane! And after all, once captured, those too are marketable. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ; jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
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-doub...
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-g...
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
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-doub...
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-g...
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
Not to mention the liability issue. Nuclear is so dangerous, the nuke industry has forced their whole liability onto the American taxpayer. WE are their liability insurance policy - private insurance won't touch it with a 10-foot fuel rod!
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; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
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 -----
From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ; jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
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 ----- From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ; jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
This is a classic example of a false choice. By trying to make this a "black or white" issue, we neglect the possibility of green or red or blue. Nothing is more futile than knowing the answer to the wrong question, and to frame the issue as gas versus nuclear is to ask the wrong question.
Electricity from a new coal-fired power plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 cents per kilowatt hour generated (and that is before a carbon tax is added). Wind power is at 7 cents or less. A new nuclear power plant is at 16 cents and rising. Solar is at 16 cents and falling, with some installations under 12 cents.
Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?
Jim Kotcon
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 1/28/2011 1:54 PM >>>
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 -----
From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ;
jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee
McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
The short answer to this question is Recurring Monthly Revenues or RMR for short. With a set customer base one needs to expand income generated by some means. Increase kw cost or decrease production cost. In the utilities case increase kw cost, increase subsidies, and increase production cost everyone wins except the customer. Investors see revenues rise, governments see tax revenues rise, customers see rates rise isn't the free market great.
But in short where does saving fit into this equation?
Kevin Fooce fooce@hotmail.com 304-751-1448 work 304-675-6687 home 304-593-2875 cell
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:39:03 -0500 From: jkotcon@wvu.edu To: dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; lesleemac1@frontier.com; nicolegood.wv@gmail.com; fyoung@mountain.net; ec@osenergy.org; jkotcon@wvu.edu; jim_scon@yahoo.com; Mary@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [EC] nuclear, gas, or coal
This is a classic example of a false choice. By trying to make this a "black or white" issue, we neglect the possibility of green or red or blue. Nothing is more futile than knowing the answer to the wrong question, and to frame the issue as gas versus nuclear is to ask the wrong question.
Electricity from a new coal-fired power plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 cents per kilowatt hour generated (and that is before a carbon tax is added). Wind power is at 7 cents or less. A new nuclear power plant is at 16 cents and rising. Solar is at 16 cents and falling, with some installations under 12 cents.
Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?
Jim Kotcon
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 1/28/2011 1:54 PM >>>
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 -----
From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ;
jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee
McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
Jim says, "Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?"
That makes sense to you and me, Jim. But I doubt that the larger world as a whole will convert to that mindset any time soon. This nation and nations around the world will continue to use increasing amounts of energy derived from one source or another. So the "false choice" you correctly recognize is one we nonetheless have to make, even though the individual druthers of the dozen or so reading this- and our significant but still limited numbers of allies prefer or even demand another choice(s).
In wind energy facility debates, and even in the PATH debates, our friend Bill DePaulo privately insists that all the conservation we can muster and prod others to muster is and will continue to be outstripped by the demands of increasing population and of the "westernizing" of the most populous nations around the world. In the current model of a world with increasing demands for "economic growth", the demand for conservation anathematizes said growth. And so the "false choice" is loathsomely upon us.
And of course if you tell me that I'm wrong about that, I will desperately want to believe you. But what I believe and what I want to believe are often in conflict.
Frank Young
----- Original Message ----- 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 Sconyers" jim_scon@yahoo.com; Mary@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:39 PM Subject: Re: nuclear, gas, or coal
This is a classic example of a false choice. By trying to make this a "black or white" issue, we neglect the possibility of green or red or blue. Nothing is more futile than knowing the answer to the wrong question, and to frame the issue as gas versus nuclear is to ask the wrong question.
Electricity from a new coal-fired power plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 cents per kilowatt hour generated (and that is before a carbon tax is added). Wind power is at 7 cents or less. A new nuclear power plant is at 16 cents and rising. Solar is at 16 cents and falling, with some installations under 12 cents.
Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?
Jim Kotcon
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 1/28/2011 1:54 PM >>>
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 -----
From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ;
jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee
McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
For me I also agree, proper regulations is a must.
Kevin Fooce fooce@hotmail.com 304-751-1448 work 304-675-6687 home 304-593-2875 cell
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:38:05 -0500 From: nicolegood.wv@gmail.com To: fyoung@mountain.net; jim_scon@yahoo.com; jkotcon@wvu.edu; dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; lesleemac1@frontier.com; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com 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 ----- From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ; jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee McCarty ; Nicole Good ; 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-doub...
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-g...
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
-
Frank Young -
James Kotcon -
Jim Sconyers -
kevin fooce -
Nicole Good