Monday, September 23, 2013

Natural gas, the media’s failures, and you « The Cost of Energy

Natural gas, the media’s failures, and you « The Cost of Energy:


"The Cost of Energy" Lou Grinzo blogs (and reblogs) about how unclear NatGas really is. It all has to do with the Methane released from the fracking.

See the reprint of the blog at from Dr. Brown.

Sadly NatGas may really not be cleaner than Coal. How dirty is that!

Here's my comments over to Lou's post.
Okay, as always, your blogs are extremely informative, with lots of facts that are well substantiated. The Dr. Brown article is a real eye opener on fracking.

Ouch! This is ugly. So we really don't gain anything from NatGas except maybe fuel independence -- and a wonderful improvement to our US trade (im)balance!:-(

The question I have for all of this NatGas is here and now. Half of the NatGas in the US is flared. So when we say that NatGas is 50% cleaner than coal, do we count the other 100% that is flared in the making? Oh, wait, we aren't saying that NatGas is actually cleaner than coal. It may not be!

Don't get me wrong, there's a safety and a transport issue here with flaring...

Good news is that much of the flaring is probably methane, right? So it could be worse, there might not be as much flaring. Simply releasing the methane would be a hefty magnitude worse?

And, of course, the point is that there should be no (short-term) plan to switch to NatGas without some follow-on plan to switch completely to sustainable fuel/power.

Much like our US energy policy, if there is one, the short-term plan is the only plan, even though it is based on exhaustible resources. That is, the plan is broken as designed.

Non-sustainability, over time, has a way of giving a wicked whiplash effect. And somehow, everyone with this broken short-term plan feel warm and cuddly about it.

Double ouch!

'via Blog this'

No comments:

Post a Comment