BigGrizzly

Groumpf

  • Bad News for Obama : Fracking May Be Worse Than Burning Coal | Mother Jones
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/methane-fracking-obama-climate-change-bill-mckibben

    His accession to office coincided (coincidentally) with the widespread adoption of hydraulic fracking to drill for natural gas, resulting in a sudden boom in supplies and a rapid drop in price, to the point where gas began to supplant coal as the fuel of choice for American power plants. As a result (and as a result of the recession Obama also inherited), the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions began to fall modestly.

    For a political leader, it was the very definition of a lucky break: Without having to do much heavy lifting against the power of the fossil fuel industry, the administration was able to produce results. In fact, it gave Obama cover from the right, as he in essence turned the GOP chant of “Drill Baby Drill” into “Frack Baby Frack.” Not only that, the cheap gas was a boost to sputtering American manufacturing, making it profitable once again to make chemicals and other goods close to home. As Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union address, as his reelection campaign geared up, “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly a hundred years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

    (...)

    But CO2 is not the only molecule that plays this trick. Methane—CH4—is a rarer gas, but it’s even more effective at trapping heat. And methane is another word for natural gas. So: When you frack, some of that gas leaks out into the atmosphere. If enough of it leaks out before you can get it to a power plant and burn it, then it’s no better, in climate terms, than burning coal. If enough of it leaks, America’s substitution of gas for coal is in fact not slowing global warming.

    (...)

    In April, Howarth published a review of all the data sets so far, and they showed that his original numbers were pretty likely correct: Up to 5 percent of the methane probably leaks out before the gas is finally burned.

    (...)

    1. Given what we know about methane leakage, it makes absolutely no sense to convert vehicle fleets to natural gas. That’s because, as you go from the well to the car, there are even more places for leaks than when you send the gas to a power plant. An EDF study found that converting even big diesel trucks to natural gas would result “in nearly 300 years of climate damage before any benefits were achieved.” Since we already use gas for lots of things like home heating and cooking, there should be a huge priority on plugging the leaks in the ancient pipes that deliver it to our cities, and in converting home gas furnaces to more modern technology like heat pumps.

    (...)

    Twenty years ago, when scientists first started calculating how much to worry about methane, they said that molecule for molecule, it trapped 25 times as much solar radiation as CO2. But now, over a more appropriate 20-year time frame, that ratio is reckoned to be about 86 times as much. At that rate, more than a third of the greenhouse gas that America produces is methane (not all of it from gas wells—a fair amount comes from cattle). And that means that while the Obama administration boasts about cutting carbon, it’s poised to leave behind a huge burst of methane as its greatest climate legacy.

    • Juste pour rappeler combien la façon dont on nous bassine avec les décisions de l’administration Trump est déconnectée de toute vision d’ensemble. Les méchants américains vont continuer de brûler un charbon qu’ils n’ont jamais cessé de brûler, du fait que les législations voulues par Obama n’ont jamais vraiment été appliquées, tout comme les législations de 2015 qui visaient à réguler un petit peu l’extraction des gaz de schistes...

      Bref, le charbon, c’est mal, surtout pour la santé publique... mais le gaz de schistes, c’est carrément catastrophique... pour le réchauffement climatique. Et les extracteurs jusqu’alors parviennent à empêcher toute législation qui les forcerait à mieux contrôler des fuites qui ne sont de toute façon que très difficiles à maîtriser de bout en bout de la chaine de l’extracteur au consommateur.

      Cet article de Mother Jones fait assez bien le point sur la question.