This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Bridge Out: Study Finds Methane Emissions From Natural Gas Production Higher Than EPA Estimates

shutterstock_46586884

A major new study blows up the whole notion of natural gas as a short-term bridge fuel to a carbon-free economy.

Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a potent heat-trapping gas. If, as now seems likely, natural gas production systems leak 2.7% (or more), then gas-fired power loses its near-term advantage over coal and becomes more of a gangplank than a bridge. Worse, without a carbon price, some gas displaces renewable energy, further undercutting any benefit it might have had.

Fifteen scientists from some of the leading institutions in the world — including Harvard, NOAA and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab — have published a seminal study, “Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States.” Crucially, it is based on “comprehensive atmospheric methane observations, extensive spatial datasets, and a high-resolution atmospheric transport model,” rather than the industry-provided numbers EPA uses.

Indeed, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study by Scot Miller et al takes the unusual step of explicitly criticizing the EPA:

The US EPA recently decreased its CH4 emission factors for fossil fuel extraction and processing by 25–30% (for 1990–2011), but we find that CH4 data from across North America instead indicate the need for a larger adjustment of the opposite sign.

D’oh!

How much larger? The study found greenhouse gas emissions from “fossil fuel extraction and processing (i.e., oil and/or natural gas) are likely a factor of two or greater than cited in existing studies.” In particular, they concluded, “regional methane emissions due to fossil fuel extraction and processing could be 4.9 ± 2.6 times larger than in EDGAR, the most comprehensive global methane inventory.”

This suggests the methane leakage rate from natural gas production, which EPA recently decreased to about 1.5%, is in fact 3% or higher.

This broad-based look at methane emissions confirms the findings of 3 recent leakage studies covering very different regions of the country:

    • NOAA researchers found in 2012 that natural-gas producers in the Denver area “are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system.”
    • A 2013 study by NOAA found leaks from oil and gas exploration and extraction in the L.A. basin representing “about 17% of the natural gas produced in the region, similar to the leak rate estimated by the California Air Resources Board using other methods.” Almost all the gas produced in the basin is “associated” with oil production (rather than, say, fracked). Associated gas is still about a fifth of total U.S. gas production.
    • Another 2013 study from 19 researchers led by NOAA concluded “measurements show that on one February day in the Uinta Basin, the natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days.” The Uinta Basin is of special interest because it “produces about 1 percent of total U.S. natural gas” and fracking has increased there over the past decade.
      • The comprehensive nature of this new study strongly suggests these earlier findings were not anomalies, as some have suggested.

Indeed, all of these findings taken together vindicate the concerns of high leakage rates raised by Cornell professors Howarth, Santoro and Ingraffea, which I reported on back in 2011. I asked Ingraffea to comment on the new study. He wrote:

The results presented by Miller and his team are another serious challenge to an “all of the above” energy policy that relies on negotiated estimates of methane emissions, rather than actual and representative emission measurements, while at the same time claiming serious concern about climate change. A growing series of regional, top-down measurements by this team and others, now on a national scale, is proving to be a more rational approach to accounting for the highly skewed distribution of methane emission sources.

He added, “That methane bridge is starting to crack.”

We have seen a number of cracks this year in the methane bridge — bringing it to the point of collapse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported recently that methane is a far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realized, some 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale — and 86 times more potent over a 20-year time frame.

With methane having both a higher leakage rate and higher global warming potential than previously thought, the notion of methane as a bridge fuel is falling apart.

Yes, it’s true a recent study finds the best-fracked wells have low methane leak rates — but that study ignored the super-emitters that are responsible for the bulk of the fugitive emissions.

And remember, for natural gas to be a bridge fuel to a carbon-free future (rather than a detour around it), gas must replace coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency — which is obviously what will happen in the real world absent a price on carbon pollution. The most comprehensive modeling to date, by fourteen teams from different organizations, found that abundant and cheap natural gas has little net impact on U.S. CO2 growth (especially post-2020) compared to the case of low shale gas penetration precisely because it displaces carbon-free energy. Globally, the International Energy Agency finds a dash to gas would destroy a livable climate.

Finally, natural gas makes little sense as a short-term sustainability play, since we know that each fracked well consumes staggering amounts of water, much of which is rendered permanently unfit for human use and reinjected into the ground where it can taint even more ground water in the coming decades. That’s particularly worrisome considering that fossil fuels destroy the climate and accelerate drought and water shortages.

With this most recent study, our understanding of the limitations of natural gas is now fairly complete. Natural gas is not a bridge to a carbon-free or climate-safe future. In fact, absent both a serious price for carbon and very strong, enforceable national regulations on leakage, natural gas is a gangplank.

The post Bridge Out: Bombshell Study Finds Methane Emissions From Natural Gas Production Far Higher Than EPA Estimates appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Joseph Romm's picture
Thank Joseph for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Discussions

Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Kevon Martis's picture
Kevon Martis on Nov 28, 2013

Keep moving the goal posts, Joseph. Acid rain, HFC’s, ozone holes, CO2, CH4 leakage, thermal generation water “consumption”, impending ice age, devastating global warming (now “climate change”)…not sure why anyone takes this line of argument or this gentleman seriously. 

We probably sould have stopped listening when they decided that “air” (CO2) was polluting our “air”.

Kevon Martis's picture
Kevon Martis on Nov 28, 2013

Keep moving the goal posts, Joseph. Acid rain, HFC’s, ozone holes, CO2, CH4 leakage, thermal generation water “consumption”, impending ice age, devastating global warming (now “climate change”)…not sure why anyone takes this line of argument or this gentleman seriously. 

We probably sould have stopped listening when they decided that “air” (CO2) was polluting our “air”.

Ed Dodge's picture
Ed Dodge on Nov 29, 2013

Natural gas is not a path to a “decarbonised” future.  Agreed.  Unfortunately wind, solar, and even nuclear are not paths to a decarbonised future either.  Considering that all of modern industrial society is built upon the foundation of hydrocarbon fuels it is hard to see how any energy system of the future is 100% devoid of carbon fuels unless you choose to abandon modern technology and industry all together.

But assuming we do still continue to use hydrocarbon fuels in some manner we should at least use the hydrocarbons that are the least toxic and most abundant and that would be natural gas.  CH4 is the hydrocarbon that exists in greatest quantities on earth and beyond.  It is functionally capable of replacing coal and petroleum for every type of machine and purpose.  It can be refinded into the plastics, chemicals, and liquid fuels modern society requires.  And methane is non-toxic, our bodies produce it and it does not foul the air, soil and water when burned or spilled.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Nov 30, 2013

Natural gas would be a lot more sustainable if we used a lot less of it.  So instead of finding new uses for it, we should be replacing fossil fuels in all applications that we can.  For example, we know from France’s example that our electricity could be 80% nuclear.  We can also use nuclear for process heat applications.

There are many places in the developing world where low labor costs allow the use of nuclear power to make synthetic transportation fuels (like hydrogen and ammonia), at a cost that is competitive with imported fossil fuels.

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on Jan 11, 2014

Ed, wind and solar clock in at around 10g and 50g CO2e/kWh electricity compared to 1,000 g for coal and about 500 g for natural gas (not counting new fugitive emissions), when averaged over hundreds of peer-reviewed, scientific publications.  I don’t know from where you derive your belief that wind and solar cannot decarbonize our future, but it sure does not seem to come from science. And this is not even counting efficiency, which can have a NEGATIVE carbon footprint.

Reference: e.g. Moomaw, W., P. Burgherr, G. Heath, M. Lenzen, J. Nyboer, A. Verbruggen, 2011: Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,USA.

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on Jan 11, 2014

Kevon, if you spend even a rudimentary amount of time reading the world’s leading scientific journals, you will find that all of the issues you mention are well documented (except for the impending ice age). If you need information on climate change, www.skepticalscience.com is a web site operated by actual climate scientists that provides references to some recent studies.

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on Jan 11, 2014

Nadir, fossil fuels have had a head start, but over 1/3 of all new US electrical generating capacity in 2013 was from renewables (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/renewable-e...). Scotland is aiming to have a 100% renewable grid by 2020. Efficiency is often overlooked as an energy “source”, but if you count the life-cycle environmental cost, even renewable energy is a bargain.

Ed Dodge's picture
Ed Dodge on Jan 12, 2014

Wind and solar are useful and I encourage their use.  But if you think you can power Chicago or New York City or the United States Air Force strictly on renewables then you must have access to some information unavailble to the rest of us.

Biomethane is carbon negative as well.  

I am a believer in the portfolio approach.  We need nukes, natural gas, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal in order to get us off coal and oil.  Every technology needs to be used where it can be used best and not shoe-horned into inappropriate applications to serve someone’s ideological beliefs.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »