More bad news for the green lobby:

[longknife]

No, fracking does not release outrageous amounts of methane, says new study
posted September 16, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

One of the many arguments that the rabidly anti-fracking, eco-radical crowd have been using to try and discredit hydraulic fracturing as a welcome boon to both our environment and our economy is the claim that the process itself leaks an unacceptable amount of methane into the atmosphere. Methane, they insist, is an especially potent greenhouse gas, so that on net start-to-finish evaluation, natural gas really isn’t any cleaner than coal and those studies about natural gas contributing so hugely to the United States’ recently decreased carbon emissions can’t really be that accurate.

And National Journal has more. Read full story @ More bad news for the green lobby: No, fracking does not release outrageous amounts of methane, says new study « Hot Air

 

[flacaltenn]

If I remember, there were faked "satellite photos" showing "methane blooms" over fracking sites.
Makes for great propaganda --- even if it's forged..

 

[Mr. H.]

...while methane from cattle and swine operations gets a complete pass.

 

[mamooth]

If I had ever heard anyone say fracking was bad because of methane emissions, this might mean something. But since I haven't heard anyone say that, I'm wondering why this is supposedly a blow to someone.

(I'm not saying someone somewhere didn't say it, as this Tina Gerhardt woman did, but it's certainly not common, meaning it's very odd to claim that the environmental side was relying on something that hardly anyone was claiming.)

 

[flacaltenn]

If I had ever heard anyone say fracking was bad because of methane emissions, this might mean something. But since I haven't heard anyone say that, I'm wondering why this is supposedly a blow to someone.

(I'm not saying someone somewhere didn't say it, as this Tina Gerhardt woman did, but it's certainly not common, meaning it's very odd to claim that the environmental side was relying on something that hardly anyone was claiming.)

Ignorant bliss. How damned convienient. There isnt anewspaper or science journal that hasnt made that false assertion.p

Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases: Scientific American

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Fracking.pdf

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change. Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the
atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.
“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I
think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

 

[Mr. H.]

If I had ever heard anyone say fracking was bad because of methane emissions, this might mean something. But since I haven't heard anyone say that, I'm wondering why this is supposedly a blow to someone.

(I'm not saying someone somewhere didn't say it, as this Tina Gerhardt woman did, but it's certainly not common, meaning it's very odd to claim that the environmental side was relying on something that hardly anyone was claiming.)

Ignorant bliss. How damned convienient. There isnt anewspaper or science journal that hasnt made that false assertion.p

Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases: Scientific American

The general population isn't ordinarily exposed to scientific publications, let alone industry journals or websites. But yes ma'amooth, these have been serious recurring accusations for some time.

Of particular concern is these assertions' effects on public opinion and policymaking in Washington, D.C.

Congress is most impressed with emotional sensationalism, not fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: response to Cathles et al. - Springer

Abstract


In April 2011, we published the first comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas obtained by hydraulic fracturing, with a focus on methane emissions. Our analysis was challenged by Cathles et al. (2012). Here, we respond to those criticisms. We stand by our approach and findings. The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al. which are substantially lower. Cathles et al. believe the focus should be just on electricity generation, and the global warming potential of methane should be considered only on a 100-year time scale. Our analysis covered both electricity (30% of US usage) and heat generation (the largest usage), and we evaluated both 20- and 100-year integrated time frames for methane. Both time frames are important, but the decadal scale is critical, given the urgent need to avoid climate-system tipping points. Using all available information and the latest climate science, we conclude that for most uses, the GHG footprint of shale gas is greater than that of other fossil fuels on time scales of up to 100 years. When used to generate electricity, the shale-gas footprint is still significantly greater than that of coal at decadal time scales but is less at the century scale. We reiterate our conclusion from our April 2011 paper that shale gas is not a suitable bridge fuel for the 21st Century.

 

[Mr. H.]

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Fracking.pdf

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change. Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the
atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.
“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I
think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

I'm of the opinion that those releases are negligible and, more importantly, manageable through more efficient construction and maintenance.

I'm also curious if those same U.S. Government scientists are also monitoring industrial cattle and swine operations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yup Goldirocks all those early studies?????

Probably highly exaggerated and wrong. You can give up on that nonsense pretty soon.
At least u beat Mammy on following the story. Congrats on that dubious distinction.

 

[Abraham3]

If fracking doesn't release dangerous quantities of methane, it is good news. Fracking could certainly use some good news.

It is NOT bad news for the green lobby. It is simply new data.

Human GHG emissions are still the leading cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years; warming that continues unabated as the energy now flows into the deep ocean during this phase of the PDO (apparently). Methane is a very potent GHG and there is good reason to be concerned about major releases of the stuff: such as from the warming Arctic tundra and methane clathrates.

 

[skookerasbil]

Bottom line.....green energy is falling like a stone in water all over the globe. Why? Simple......its too fucking expensive......which is important to governments who want to remain in power. Only the k00ks firure it is politically popular to say, "Yup.......vote for me and I'll raise your electric bill 40% next year!!!" Only the climate k00ks cant connect the dots on the realities, ie: Germany is opening a dozen now coal plants between now and 2020. Stoopid fucks are so fcuking stoopid.


People Are Losing Hope For Green Energy - Business Insider



Nobody cares about the science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yessiree................. Gotta love the way that green energy is failing.

Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St.

Second-quarter 2013 results for solar power markets offered a mixed bag. Residential solar installations were flat quarter-over-quarter, commercial installations were down 11% and utility-scale installations jumped 42%. The United States installed 832 megawatts of new solar photovoltaic (PV) projects in the quarter, up 15% compared with the first quarter and up 1.5% year-over-year.

The data comes from a U.S. Solar Market Insight report from GTM Research. The firm forecasts total U.S. solar PV installations of 4,400 megawatts in 2013, a 30% increase over 2012 installations.


Read more: Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St. Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St.
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook



Anyone who tells you wind power is expensive is bad-shit crazy. Wind power is the cheapest option for new electricity generation in many if not most places in the world, including much of the US. That would indeed help to explain why the US installed more wind power capacity than power capacity from any other source in 2012, 42% (or 43%?) of all new power capacity in the country.

In announcing a recent report released by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), Berkeley Lab actually noted that, “The prices offered by wind projects to utility purchasers averaged $40/MWh for projects negotiating contracts 2011 and 2012, spurring demand for wind energy.”

That’s $0.04 per kWh. Even if you add in the $0.022 Production Tax Credit (PTC), that’s $0.062 per kWh.

As the reader who shared this with me aptly emphasized, “This is a low number. It’s not just the LCOE of wind. It includes real estate, transmission, taxes and profits. It’s the ‘delivered to the door’ cost of electricity, not just the generation price.”

Read more at US Wind Power Prices Down To $0.04 Per kWh | CleanTechnica

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Fracking.pdf

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change. Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the
atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.
“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I
think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

I'm of the opinion that those releases are negligible and, more importantly, manageable through more efficient construction and maintenance.

I'm also curious if those same U.S. Government scientists are also monitoring industrial cattle and swine operations.

As a matter of fact, that is also something that the people that watch the CH4 emissions are addressing. As with the leakage in the natural gas fields, the production of CH4 from the agricultural operations are preventable. However, with both, you are talking extra expense to do the necessary management of the emissions. And, unfortunetly, without stringent governmental regulations, it will not be done in either case.

 

[Mr. H.]

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Fracking.pdf

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change. Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the
atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.
“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I
think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

I'm of the opinion that those releases are negligible and, more importantly, manageable through more efficient construction and maintenance.

I'm also curious if those same U.S. Government scientists are also monitoring industrial cattle and swine operations.

As a matter of fact, that is also something that the people that watch the CH4 emissions are addressing. As with the leakage in the natural gas fields, the production of CH4 from the agricultural operations are preventable. However, with both, you are talking extra expense to do the necessary management of the emissions. And, unfortunetly, without stringent governmental regulations, it will not be done in either case.

The first step in remediating a problem is identifying the problem. And the natural gas industry has gone to great lengths to do so...



Characterizing Pivotal Sources of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Production

 

[skookerasbil]

Yessiree................. Gotta love the way that green energy is failing.

Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St.

Second-quarter 2013 results for solar power markets offered a mixed bag. Residential solar installations were flat quarter-over-quarter, commercial installations were down 11% and utility-scale installations jumped 42%. The United States installed 832 megawatts of new solar photovoltaic (PV) projects in the quarter, up 15% compared with the first quarter and up 1.5% year-over-year.

The data comes from a U.S. Solar Market Insight report from GTM Research. The firm forecasts total U.S. solar PV installations of 4,400 megawatts in 2013, a 30% increase over 2012 installations.


Read more: Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St. Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St.
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook



Anyone who tells you wind power is expensive is bad-shit crazy. Wind power is the cheapest option for new electricity generation in many if not most places in the world, including much of the US. That would indeed help to explain why the US installed more wind power capacity than power capacity from any other source in 2012, 42% (or 43%?) of all new power capacity in the country.

In announcing a recent report released by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), Berkeley Lab actually noted that, “The prices offered by wind projects to utility purchasers averaged $40/MWh for projects negotiating contracts 2011 and 2012, spurring demand for wind energy.”

That’s $0.04 per kWh. Even if you add in the $0.022 Production Tax Credit (PTC), that’s $0.062 per kWh.

As the reader who shared this with me aptly emphasized, “This is a low number. It’s not just the LCOE of wind. It includes real estate, transmission, taxes and profits. It’s the ‘delivered to the door’ cost of electricity, not just the generation price.”

Read more at US Wind Power Prices Down To $0.04 Per kWh | CleanTechnica

But the critical question really is......as compared to what? This is a question people on the left NEVER want to answer ( especially climate change radicals ). Statistics are only impressive when they are presented in proper context.


Consider..........


A chick may get on here and say she got boob job and it increased her boobs 25%. Impressive? But.....maybe not. Depends on where she started from!!!






Applied here.......ummm.........no elaboration needed.


Liberals are always fond of throwing seemingly impressive statistics around, but they are almost invariably bogus.



Now....lets put green energy into a statistically broader context......and the reality becomes crystal clear!!! No elaboration needed.( well....the Oooops in the pic below is a bit of a hint)

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Two Thumbs]

No, fracking does not release outrageous amounts of methane, says new study
posted September 16, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

One of the many arguments that the rabidly anti-fracking, eco-radical crowd have been using to try and discredit hydraulic fracturing as a welcome boon to both our environment and our economy is the claim that the process itself leaks an unacceptable amount of methane into the atmosphere. Methane, they insist, is an especially potent greenhouse gas, so that on net start-to-finish evaluation, natural gas really isn’t any cleaner than coal and those studies about natural gas contributing so hugely to the United States’ recently decreased carbon emissions can’t really be that accurate.

And National Journal has more. Read full story @ More bad news for the green lobby: No, fracking does not release outrageous amounts of methane, says new study « Hot Air

so liberals got caught lying and fearmongering again.

quell surprise

 

[flacaltenn]

Yessiree................. Gotta love the way that green energy is failing.

Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St.

Second-quarter 2013 results for solar power markets offered a mixed bag. Residential solar installations were flat quarter-over-quarter, commercial installations were down 11% and utility-scale installations jumped 42%. The United States installed 832 megawatts of new solar photovoltaic (PV) projects in the quarter, up 15% compared with the first quarter and up 1.5% year-over-year.

But the critical question really is......as compared to what? This is a question people on the left NEVER want to answer ( especially climate change radicals ). Statistics are only impressive when they are presented in proper context.


Consider..........


A chick may get on here and say she got boob job and it increased her boobs 25%. Impressive? But.....maybe not. Depends on where she started from!!!






Applied here.......ummm.........no elaboration needed.


Liberals are always fond of throwing seemingly impressive statistics around, but they are almost invariably bogus.

Sometimes --- numbers and statistics just don't matter if the choices are sexy enough..
Wind and solar ain't sexy enough to ignore the numbers..

BTW --- is that BEFORE or AFTER ???
Aww -- never mind --- wouldn't matter...

 

[skookerasbil]

Yessiree................. Gotta love the way that green energy is failing.

Second-Quarter U.S. Solar Installations Rise 15% - 24/7 Wall St.

Second-quarter 2013 results for solar power markets offered a mixed bag. Residential solar installations were flat quarter-over-quarter, commercial installations were down 11% and utility-scale installations jumped 42%. The United States installed 832 megawatts of new solar photovoltaic (PV) projects in the quarter, up 15% compared with the first quarter and up 1.5% year-over-year.

But the critical question really is......as compared to what? This is a question people on the left NEVER want to answer ( especially climate change radicals ). Statistics are only impressive when they are presented in proper context.


Consider..........


A chick may get on here and say she got boob job and it increased her boobs 25%. Impressive? But.....maybe not. Depends on where she started from!!!






Applied here.......ummm.........no elaboration needed.


Liberals are always fond of throwing seemingly impressive statistics around, but they are almost invariably bogus.

BTW --- is that BEFORE or AFTER ???
Aww -- never mind --- wouldn't matter...

Exactly my point......stuff is kinda lost on the folks who fail to put statistics into proper perspective. Some wont even get the analogy above!!