The Equipment Designed to Cut Methane Emissions is Failing (apnews.com) 46
Scientists say tht measured over a 20-year period, methane "packs about 80 times the climate-warming power of carbon dioxide," according to the Associated Press. "And according to the International Energy Agency, methane is to blame for roughly 30% of the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
And yet... Aerial surveys have documented huge amounts of methane wafting from oil and gas fields in the United States and beyond. It's a problem the Biden administration has sought to attack in its recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act. One of the law's provisions threatens fines of up to $1,500 per ton of methane released, to be imposed against the worst polluters. Perhaps most crucially, the law provides $1.55 billion in funding for companies to upgrade equipment to more effectively contain emissions — equipment that could, in theory, help the operators avoid fines.
Yet some of the best equipment for reducing emissions is already installed on oil and gas infrastructure.... And critics say such equipment is failing to capture much of the methane and casting doubt on whether the Biden plan would go far to correct the problem.... "Energy companies have made pledges, but I've got to tell you, I haven't seen anything from a practical standpoint that makes me believe there's any reality to reductions on the ground," said Tim Doty, an environmental scientist and former air quality inspector for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "Maybe they're making progress, but are they making enough progress to slow down climate change? I don't think so...."
Sometimes, methane escapes because the equipment designed to contain it hasn't been properly calibrated or maintained. Emissions aren't immediately stopped once new equipment is installed. Companies must still invest in properly designing the system and continuously monitoring and maintaining the equipment. This requires money and staff, which experts say many companies neglect.... And hydrocarbons like methane, because they are corrosive, inevitably degrade the tanks, pipes and equipment that are supposed to contain them. "All this stuff is going to be prone to leak — that's just the way it is," said Coyne Gibson, who spent about two decades as an engineer inspecting oil and gas equipment. "That's mechanics. And there's there's not really any way to avoid it...."
The staffing it would take to continuously survey the nation's 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines would likely be prohibitively expensive.
"Emissions keep going up. We're moving in the wrong direction..." Antoine Halff, chief analyst at energy analytics company Kayrros, tells the Associated Press. But he adds that "the potential, the conditions, to change course seem to be here."
The article points out that America's Environmental Protection Agency "is writing rules on methane reduction that will further detail what would be required of companies starting in 2024."
And yet... Aerial surveys have documented huge amounts of methane wafting from oil and gas fields in the United States and beyond. It's a problem the Biden administration has sought to attack in its recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act. One of the law's provisions threatens fines of up to $1,500 per ton of methane released, to be imposed against the worst polluters. Perhaps most crucially, the law provides $1.55 billion in funding for companies to upgrade equipment to more effectively contain emissions — equipment that could, in theory, help the operators avoid fines.
Yet some of the best equipment for reducing emissions is already installed on oil and gas infrastructure.... And critics say such equipment is failing to capture much of the methane and casting doubt on whether the Biden plan would go far to correct the problem.... "Energy companies have made pledges, but I've got to tell you, I haven't seen anything from a practical standpoint that makes me believe there's any reality to reductions on the ground," said Tim Doty, an environmental scientist and former air quality inspector for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "Maybe they're making progress, but are they making enough progress to slow down climate change? I don't think so...."
Sometimes, methane escapes because the equipment designed to contain it hasn't been properly calibrated or maintained. Emissions aren't immediately stopped once new equipment is installed. Companies must still invest in properly designing the system and continuously monitoring and maintaining the equipment. This requires money and staff, which experts say many companies neglect.... And hydrocarbons like methane, because they are corrosive, inevitably degrade the tanks, pipes and equipment that are supposed to contain them. "All this stuff is going to be prone to leak — that's just the way it is," said Coyne Gibson, who spent about two decades as an engineer inspecting oil and gas equipment. "That's mechanics. And there's there's not really any way to avoid it...."
The staffing it would take to continuously survey the nation's 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines would likely be prohibitively expensive.
"Emissions keep going up. We're moving in the wrong direction..." Antoine Halff, chief analyst at energy analytics company Kayrros, tells the Associated Press. But he adds that "the potential, the conditions, to change course seem to be here."
The article points out that America's Environmental Protection Agency "is writing rules on methane reduction that will further detail what would be required of companies starting in 2024."
Oh wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Shocking that oil industry band-aid solution doesn't do shit.
Re: (Score:1)
so they get 1.5 billion of taxpayer money to make it right, and use that money to make it even worse ... cool!
somehow it doesn't surprise me. i have made peace with the fact that life on earth is long doomed as we know it, the whole climate fuzz is now just excuses and hysteria, it's far too late, and it's going to be hard but that's just the best we can do as a species, apparently. sadly for most other species on this planet we won't get extinct, though. not in time.
Re: (Score:3)
How about putting billions into boosting the growth & roll out of sustainable, renewable energy sources to meet our needs
Because all those fracking wells are drilled exactly because the public wants renewables. Renewables are useless without natural gas (or something else with a fast response time). The amount of fracking we are doing right now is mainly because instead of actually building CO2 free power generation, we built renewables which need natural gas peakers to be useful. Your anger about this is correct, who you are angry with is not. Also, the fossil fuels industry isn't inefficient. Renewables are inefficient
Re:Oh wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Renewables are useless without natural gas (or something else with a fast response time).
It's called wind overproduction backed by grid improvements. It can respond more rapidly than anything but a battery, and you can include a percentage of that as well in order to provide even faster response times.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called wind overproduction backed by grid improvements. It can respond more rapidly than anything but a battery, and you can include a percentage of that as well in order to provide even faster response times.
In many places that also means relying on other countries, and that is never a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
In many places that also means relying on other countries, and that is never a good idea.
But that's also true for gas, coal, nuclear for many nations.
Re: (Score:2)
In many places that also means relying on other countries, and that is never a good idea.
But that's also true for gas, coal, nuclear for many nations.
Yup. Best you can do is minimize relying on others wherever possible and have as many backups as possible when you have no other choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's also true for gas, coal, nuclear for many nations.
If Europe has taught us anything it's that coal, gas and nuclear fuels can be stored. Quite a different dynamic when Russia says "You're going to have a tough winter" to Russia saying "I'm turning your lights off tomorrow".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's shocking that any industry other than registered charities would do more than the minimum required by regulations.
There's no money in being the greenest fossil fuels company. The public doesn't pay extra for your product, and hate you all the same. There's no minds to sway. Hence the environment is a cost centre, not a profit centre and those costs are determined almost exclusively by meeting minimum regulations.
Interestingly the industry has a term for doing anything beyond spec, be that environmental
Methane is not corrosive (Score:5, Informative)
CH4 is *not corrosive*. However, "natural gas" is due to other substances that are found deposits alongside the methane e.g; H2S and H2O+CO2/H2CO3.
Re: (Score:2)
Schoolboy errors like this damage the credibility of ... who is the scandal-rag? Anyone worth noting.
Cuts down pollution, not climate change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We need to get over this and put in the infrastructure to make clean power work.
Fracking fields are most of the infrastructure required to make renewables work.
Re: (Score:2)
Fracking fields are most of the infrastructure required to make renewables work.
Stop with this absurdist trolling lie. It's dumb and it makes my eyes roll uncontrollably. Your buddies at Chevron and Exxon and Cummins and Allison no doubt thank you for your service, though.
Re: (Score:1)
No, he's right. You have to dig through the Earth and mine out minerals like Lithium, nickel, cobalt, rare earths, aluminum, iron, etc to make batteries and EV's. And what does mining equipment run off of? Diesel, gas, etc.
Hell, we still don't even have trucking switched to electric yet. Get back to work and release that semi already, Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's right. You have to dig through the Earth and mine out minerals like Lithium, nickel, cobalt, rare earths, aluminum, iron, etc to make batteries and EV's. And what does mining equipment run off of? Diesel, gas, etc.
A lot, but not all, and it doesn't necessarily have to be run on diesel, it's just been convenient. Even then, though, it's still cleaner than burning gas or petroleum to make power in terms of CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are deep in denial! You are grasping at straws and see "magic" simplistic solutions. _You_ are the problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can't speak for Germany or California, but here in Illinois (using round numbers) but electricity production went from about 4% natural gas to about 20% as renewables went from went from about 2% to about 10%, but that's really because coal went from about 45% to about 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
> Converting from burning coal or oil is a great way to cut down on pollution, but isn't helping with greenhouse gases.
"EPAâ(TM)s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), released in 2018 with 2016 data, shows that at the national level, natural gas units have an average emission rate of 898 pounds CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while coal units have an emissions rate of 2,180 pounds CO2 per MWh."
I'm pretty sure 898 is less than 2,180.
Not to argue against the dire need for more r
"Prohibitively Expensive" (Score:2)
Sure, it's expensive. More expensive than polluting as you go.
In the same way that throwing your bag of garbage out the car window is more expensive than paying your trash bill.
"Someone else'll come and clean it up. Someone always does".
Re: "Prohibitively Expensive" (Score:2)
Scratch that - reverse it.
In the way that paying your trash bill is more expensive than throwing your bag of garbage out the car window.
No caffeine today...
Re: (Score:3)
The staffing it would take to continuously survey the nation's 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines would likely be prohibitively expensive.
We can make NOT surveying those pipelines even more expensive if that's what it takes.
Come on, folks. These leaks can be seen from space. Or aerial surveys of pipelines. The people who police emissions to impose the fines can forward the data to pipeline companies with a policy not to fine them if they take quick action. There. The "prohibitively expensive" excuse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The staffing it would take to continuously survey the nation's 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines would likely be prohibitively expensive.
It can be automated. It is being automated.
Hydrogen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're joking, but you'd be amazed how much hydrogen you can emit without ever triggering an LEL (Lower Explosion Limit) meter. Environmental agencies the world over mandate fugitive emissions testing of sealing surfaces precisely because emissions can be significant without actually being immediately dangerous.
At 4% leakage, methane is as bad as coal (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it was MIT researchers that did a model in 2016 that showed using methane for energy did as much global warming damage as using coal, if the total leakage were 4%:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
The industry promptly claimed 0.25%, of course, but studies like this one have come in closer to 2.5%: ...so, that's less than 4%, but let's assume the effect is linear: with 0% leakage, only half as bad as coal, only half the CO2. With 4% leakage, we go from 50%-as-bad to 100%-as-bad. So 2.5% leakage would be 80% as bad as coal.
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
There, you have it. We're reliant on a resource, expanding our usage of a resource, that winds up being 80% as bad as COAL. And telling ourselves it's "cleaner", a "bridge fuel". It's bullshit. We need to move to storage for energy peaking plants, heat pumps to heat space and water, as fast as industry can push out the infrastructure and equipment. Period.
Re:At 4% leakage, methane is as bad as coal (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change isn't the only problem, and perhaps not even the largest problem, with coal. Coal emissions include mercury, lead, radioactive elements, and massive quantities of soot and ash. These emissions kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people every year, and are 10 to 100 times as toxic as gas emissions. [wikipedia.org] Switching from coal to gas may not have a huge effect in terms of climate change, but it does have a huge effect in terms of human health, and it's worth it for that reason alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If by "we", you mean that Russian and Chinese oligarchs will voluntarily spend money on an invisible environmental problem, then, maybe.
We might get that leakage down from whatever it really is, to the 2.3% we could detect already! Down to that 80% as bad as coal!
The space data indicates we've been underestimating, and it's probably 90% as bad as coal. Or 100%.
Re: (Score:1)
British humour (Score:2)
That's more of a youthane than a methane.
Burn it (Score:2)
Surely, burn it to run a generator. While that would still be bad, emitting C02, as the article says, it's on 1/80 as bad as the methane, and it should free up generators elsewhere that are burning coal or already-captured gas. It's not a long-term solution, but it's a heck of a lot better than venting to the atmosphere either intentionally or through leaks.
Prioritization (Score:2)
By analogy: there'd be tremendous benefit if every car was an EV, even if some folks would (rightly) point out that there's a lot of carbon emissions associated with the electricity that powers them. It would still be progress if we could get the most-easily-replaced vehicle
Equipment Failure? (Score:2)
That doesn't sound to me like a failure of the equipment, but rather a failure of the companies making use of it.
Natural emissions (Score:2)
So what you should be doing is comparing the natural emissions from an area with those after development (each