Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure
April 10, 2012
Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Fulltext
Natural gas is seen by many as the future of American energy: a fuel
that can provide energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the process. However, there has also been confusion about
the climate implications of increased use of natural gas for electric
power and transportation. We propose and illustrate the use of
technology warming potentials as a robust and transparent way to
compare the cumulative radiative forcing created by alternative
technologies fueled by natural gas and oil or coal by using the best
available estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from each fuel cycle
(i.e., production, transportation and use). We find that a shift to
compressed natural gas vehicles from gasoline or diesel vehicles leads
to greater radiative forcing of the climate for 80 or 280 yr,
respectively, before beginning to produce benefits. Compressed natural
gas vehicles could produce climate benefits on all time frames if the
well-to-wheels CH4 leakage were capped at a level 45–70% below current
estimates. By contrast, using natural gas instead of coal for electric
power plants can reduce radiative forcing immediately, and reducing
CH4 losses from the production and transportation of natural gas would
produce even greater benefits. There is a need for the natural gas
industry and science community to help obtain better emissions data
and for increased efforts to reduce methane leakage in order to
minimize the climate footprint of natural gas.
mike bosetti
Tony Henderson
GDACC 
I am a listener and greatly appreciate the reporting and interviews of Susan Arbetter. However, I am also a member of the Tioga County Landowner’s Coalition and I strongly object to Susan’s characterization of our membership as holding up the development of gas resources in PA and Ohio as a model or desirous (as well as other related presumptive, unsupported and inaccurate statements). Our organization was formed to PROTECT its members against the abuses of the gas industry seen in those states and others, and we have worked long and hard to ensure that what we see as the inevitable extraction of our gas resources is done in the most environmentally sound and least socially disruptive manner while also working to maximize the economic benefits to our landowners and locales. I believe that Susan has a personal bias against gas development that is seeping in to her public work. I am an environmentalist and joined our coalition to protect my land and our environment. I believe that position is typical of our group and we are being misrepresented. I encourage you to invite some of our leaders to Albany to give you the straight story about our goals and intent. WE are ground zero for this development in New York, not Albany. You should be presenting a picture from our perspective.
Thanks for your good work!