Clean Natural Gas? Nope.

[Schneibster]

A new study says that natural gas, contrary to previous reports, will be as bad as coal in terms of total warming effect. This is because while burning the gas produces less CO2 per unit of energy (the gas is composed of both hydrogen and carbon, both of which provide energy, but only the carbon produces CO2), the release of methane and heavier alkanes during extraction (almost impossible to prevent) means that a much more potent global warming agent, the gas itself, will increase the warming effect greatly.

ETA: Oh, and fracking makes the leakage worse. Of course.

The article goes into some pretty interesting detail; I recommend it. Enjoy.

[Seth]

A new study says that natural gas, contrary to previous reports, will be as bad as coal in terms of total warming effect. This is because while burning the gas produces less CO2 per unit of energy (the gas is composed of both hydrogen and carbon, both of which provide energy, but only the carbon produces CO2), the release of methane and heavier alkanes during extraction (almost impossible to prevent) means that a much more potent global warming agent, the gas itself, will increase the warming effect greatly.

ETA: Oh, and fracking makes the leakage worse. Of course.

The article goes into some pretty interesting detail; I recommend it. Enjoy.

Great, let's get back to coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States!

Which begs the question of whether we should let dying boreal forests rot and decay or simply light them off and let them burn.

The former produces methane, which is 16 times more "harmful" to the atmosphere than carbon monoxide, which is the primary carbon by-product of the latter. The particulates in forest fires may actually be beneficial in large quantities, rising up and obscuring the sun, thereby producing reduced insolation and reducing global temperatures.

Anybody got a match?

[MiM]

Seriously, what is a few Fukushimas, compared to the way we are toying with global warming?

[Schneibster]

A new study says that natural gas, contrary to previous reports, will be as bad as coal in terms of total warming effect. This is because while burning the gas produces less CO2 per unit of energy (the gas is composed of both hydrogen and carbon, both of which provide energy, but only the carbon produces CO2), the release of methane and heavier alkanes during extraction (almost impossible to prevent) means that a much more potent global warming agent, the gas itself, will increase the warming effect greatly.

ETA: Oh, and fracking makes the leakage worse. Of course.

The article goes into some pretty interesting detail; I recommend it. Enjoy.

Great, let's get back to coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States!

Which begs the question of whether we should let dying boreal forests rot and decay or simply light them off and let them burn.

The former produces methane, which is 16 times more "harmful" to the atmosphere than carbon monoxide, which is the primary carbon by-product of the latter. The particulates in forest fires may actually be beneficial in large quantities, rising up and obscuring the sun, thereby producing reduced insolation and reducing global temperatures.

Anybody got a match?

A very interesting subject that I'm not going to get into with someone who's not mature enough to be interested in my opinion.

[Seth]

A new study says that natural gas, contrary to previous reports, will be as bad as coal in terms of total warming effect. This is because while burning the gas produces less CO2 per unit of energy (the gas is composed of both hydrogen and carbon, both of which provide energy, but only the carbon produces CO2), the release of methane and heavier alkanes during extraction (almost impossible to prevent) means that a much more potent global warming agent, the gas itself, will increase the warming effect greatly.

ETA: Oh, and fracking makes the leakage worse. Of course.

The article goes into some pretty interesting detail; I recommend it. Enjoy.

Great, let's get back to coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States!

Which begs the question of whether we should let dying boreal forests rot and decay or simply light them off and let them burn.

The former produces methane, which is 16 times more "harmful" to the atmosphere than carbon monoxide, which is the primary carbon by-product of the latter. The particulates in forest fires may actually be beneficial in large quantities, rising up and obscuring the sun, thereby producing reduced insolation and reducing global temperatures.

Anybody got a match?

A very interesting subject that I'm not going to get into with someone who's not mature enough to be interested in my opinion.

Feel free to state your opinion at any time, nobody's stopping you from doing so. I'll then analyze your opinion and see if it's worth the electrons it took to post it. That's how it works, you see. But I can see why you wouldn't want to post your opinions, given how badly beaten up they generally get at the hands of rational, reasonable, logical people who are unafraid to tell it like it is.

So, if you don't want to post your opinions, it's no skin off my nose, you won't be missed. But you sound like a four-year-old whining about the rules of baseball and complaining that everybody's being mean to you, so you're going to pout and sulk and deny us the benefit of your opinions as if that were some sort of punishment.

Trust me, it's no punishment, it's a relief. So thanks for fucking off.

[Schneibster]

A new study says that natural gas, contrary to previous reports, will be as bad as coal in terms of total warming effect. This is because while burning the gas produces less CO2 per unit of energy (the gas is composed of both hydrogen and carbon, both of which provide energy, but only the carbon produces CO2), the release of methane and heavier alkanes during extraction (almost impossible to prevent) means that a much more potent global warming agent, the gas itself, will increase the warming effect greatly.

ETA: Oh, and fracking makes the leakage worse. Of course.

The article goes into some pretty interesting detail; I recommend it. Enjoy.

Great, let's get back to coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States!

Which begs the question of whether we should let dying boreal forests rot and decay or simply light them off and let them burn.

The former produces methane, which is 16 times more "harmful" to the atmosphere than carbon monoxide, which is the primary carbon by-product of the latter. The particulates in forest fires may actually be beneficial in large quantities, rising up and obscuring the sun, thereby producing reduced insolation and reducing global temperatures.

Anybody got a match?

A very interesting subject that I'm not going to get into with someone who's not mature enough to be interested in my opinion.

Feel free to state your opinion at any time, nobody's stopping you from doing so.

[Seth]

A new study says that natural gas, contrary to previous reports, will be as bad as coal in terms of total warming effect. This is because while burning the gas produces less CO2 per unit of energy (the gas is composed of both hydrogen and carbon, both of which provide energy, but only the carbon produces CO2), the release of methane and heavier alkanes during extraction (almost impossible to prevent) means that a much more potent global warming agent, the gas itself, will increase the warming effect greatly.

ETA: Oh, and fracking makes the leakage worse. Of course.

The article goes into some pretty interesting detail; I recommend it. Enjoy.

Great, let's get back to coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States!

Which begs the question of whether we should let dying boreal forests rot and decay or simply light them off and let them burn.

The former produces methane, which is 16 times more "harmful" to the atmosphere than carbon monoxide, which is the primary carbon by-product of the latter. The particulates in forest fires may actually be beneficial in large quantities, rising up and obscuring the sun, thereby producing reduced insolation and reducing global temperatures.

Anybody got a match?

A very interesting subject that I'm not going to get into with someone who's not mature enough to be interested in my opinion.

Feel free to state your opinion at any time, nobody's stopping you from doing so.

I suppose this constitutes an opinion, so I agree, you are boring.