Comments on: Is Natural Gas Cleaner Than Coal? It Depends on Leaks—and There's a Huge One in the North Sea

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:54:55 +0000

#1. Isn’t there an entropy problem with capturing CO2 from burning methane and turning it back into methane or methanol?

By: Iain

Iain — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:49:51 +0000

As long as we burn fossil fuels all we are doing is kidding ourselves. About a year ago I read an article about fracking and natural gas leakage and apparently 7% of the natural gas leaks away. So that would be like 2 1/3% each at production, transportation and end user sites.

By the way, on a geological scale, stretching oil out to last an extra 500 or 1000 years is meaningless. All that CO2 will still be around and global temperatures will be rising. Back to the Jurassic for planet Earth.

By: gene

gene — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:44:05 +0000

Even if the CO2 output is the same, using natural gas still creates less soot, grime, carcinogens and other pollutants than petroleum based fuels, so its still worth switching over. At least our cities will be cleaner and brighter. We are TOO focused on only the CO2. Lets not get distracted. Plus natural gas can be produced from biofuels, avoiding the need for problem causing foreign policies.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:41:04 +0000

Bryan: heavy metals are a whole different matter. That valley isn’t a superfund site because of sulfur.

By: Bryan Bremner

Bryan Bremner — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:28:25 +0000

Wonderful Idea!!! Inject Chlorine => HCL into the atmosphere! I worked at the Bunker Hill Mine in N. Idaho for ONE YEAR – that’s how long it took me to get another job. What they shipped out was Lead, Zink and Sulfuric Acid, but not all of the sulfur was converted to SO4, the rest went out the smokestack to create H2SO4 in the air. That worked out well, the whole valley is now a Superfund site. You know; kills horses, kids, trees, whatever. The company was good about it though, they would pay for the horse but then put a lien on your property to prevent you from claiming any more horses. My kids were tested for lead. I really had this big warm, comfy feeling after that.

I have 2 comments.

1. Make sure you know all the reactions before you make a suggestion, the cure may be worse than the problem.

2. Efficiency, wind turbines, photovoltaics, geothermal, perhaps even some hydro but those are mostly used up, are much safer ways of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. If you have to get a bicycle, walk, or take mass transit, OK, maybe we could all pay $15 per gallon for gas.

Update, we fed our horses trucked in hay and moved before our kids had any ill effects – or at least not very serious ones, they both have doctor after their names now.

By: Bryan Bremner

Bryan Bremner — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:23:12 +0000

Wonderful Idea!!! Inject Chlorine => HCL into the atmosphere! I worked at the Bunker Hill Mine in N. Idaho for ONE YEAR – that’s how long it took me to get another job. What they shipped out was Lead, Zink and Sulfuric Acid, but not all of the sulfur was converted to SO4, the rest went out the smokestack to create H2SO4 in the air. That worked out well, the whole valley is now a Superfund site. You know; kills horses, kids, trees, whatever. The company was good about it though, they would pay for the horse but then put a lein on your property to prevent you from claiming any more horses. My kids were tested for lead. I really had this big warm, comfy feeling after that.

I have 2 comments.

1. Make sure you know all the reactions before you make a suggestion, the cure may be worse than the problem.

Update, we fed our horses trucked in hay and moved before our kids had any ill effects – or at least not very serious ones, they both have doctor after their names now.

By: RICHARD D. STACY

RICHARD D. STACY — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:10:42 +0000

If, as is reported, methane is worse than carbon dioxide with regard to its “greenhouse gas” effect, then someone should just toss a lighted match in the North Sea and convert all of those millions of cubic feet of methane to carbon dioxide and water.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:19:17 +0000

Chlorine can be added but may affect the ozone level.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:24:39 +0000

#3: Done globally, it shouldn’t be a big problem. The manufacture of chlorine produces a base, sodium hydroxide, as a byproduct, so the net acidification would ultimately cancel out.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:15:24 +0000

The turnover rate of soluble components (like HCl and H2SO4) is much slower in the upper atmosphere. At least a few scientists have suggested injecting sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to radically combat global warming; HCl probably has the same effect (ever open a bottle of muriatic acid on a humid day?). It certainly isn’t an ideal solution: rain acidity and haze will rise. But it’s not nearly as bad as terrestrial smog, which is what most people are familiar with. If such treatment works, it would provide an additional benefit offsetting natural gas leakage, simultaneously reducing the impact of atmospheric methane, reducing direct petroleum and coal consumption, and reducing insolation.