There is no question that the total CO2 GHG emissions saved by burning gas instead of coal is nearly or even more than negated in the US by the increase in GHG methane emissions from exploration, production, treatment, transport, transfer and storage of natural gas. It need not be so. If the US EPA and the Texas Railroad Commission could and would take action, a great deal of the methane emissions could be avoided. That, unfortunately, is a tall task, given the influence of the E&P industry to avoid even proper measurement of the emissions, let alone to reduce them. The Permian Basin fracking \"miracle\" has been a big money loser for years, that is, until the current run-up in prices. They are not likely to spend money and time to monitor and reduce methane emissions without much better regulation.

However, substituting wind, solar and geothermal for gas and/or coal does result in reduced GHG emissions. It is incorrect to imply or state that methane emissions are in any way an \"unintended consequence\" of wind power. Please clarify your post.

On the other hand, how many load-following Molten Salt Fission powered by Thorium generators are currently in operation? When and if Thorium generators become commercially available and viable, they may be an effective complement to wind, solar and geothermal power.

So, how much do they cost to build and operate? Do they have a demonstrable safety record? For that matter, will one be up and running before a nuclear fusion reactor is?

Methane Blows up Wind’s Gains―Episode 29―Unintended Consequences Series