Hacker News Reader

There's some uncertainty about whether shale-gas is actually better than coal, due to the substantial (but poorly measured) "fugitive gas" losses direct to the atmosphere in gas recovery. This paper estimates that replacing coal with shale-gas leads to about 20% worse greenhouse-gas impact: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth20...

Some commentary on the paper and reactions to it, which concludes mostly that better data would be nice: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/fracki...

A study that was just released found lower values for the amount of methane that escapes than the 2011 study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abst...

Not saying this should end the debate, but it's another data point.

From a public health perspective, unless fracking can be tied to water table contamination in a systemic way (as opposed to in the occasional accidental way) its going to be head and shoulders above Coal, both in the extraction, the processing, and the burning categories.

This paper is actually the start of a very interesting academic brawl. I've reviewed that paper by Howarth and found it lacking in many ways. Howarth is included in a trio of academics from Cornell University that have become popular in the media for denouncing the increasing use of natural gas, and even suggest that coal is cleaner on a short time scale. Since this initial paper was published there has been a flurry of responses from another academic at Cornell, named Lawrence Cathles. Cathles is also the only geologist in the group, Howarth is a prof of ecology and Ingraffea is a structural engineer. This article sums up the history between Cathles and Howarth. [2] So far Cathles has written at this point two or three papers in response to Howarth's original paper, and one of the later ones is a bit of a scientific smackdown.[1] It concludes that the estimates of fugitive gas emissions are very high and other assumptions are made that badly shift the conclusions against natural gas. The response papers by Cathles are very fun to read and I think they provide a great introduction to the current climate science on natural gas.

[1] http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/cathles/...

[2] http://energyindepth.org/national/cornell-response-to-cornel...

Here's a good article[1] on why US oil consumption has declined in recent years.

Basically: Improved vehicle MPG, flat/decreasing VMT [2], decreasing non-highway use of distillate [3], improved industrial efficiency, and a shrinking industrial sector.

[1] - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9811

[2] - Vehicle Miles Traveled

[3] - http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/2013/130227/twippr...

That "shrinking industrial sector" without a shrinking consumption probably means that other countries, in particular China, burn oil/gas/nuclear to produce stuff for the USA.

A honest "are the US using less oil" evaluation should include that energy, just like ecological footprint calculations include imports of materials.

Sorry, but as much as I want them to succeed too, the "alternative" energies just do not have the capacity to replace the "traditional" fuels. The problem with America is that we have a problem with glut and self-destructive greed, which is why all of our "green" efforts are nothing but window-dressing, facade, and self-delusion while be destroy and consume our way into disaster. There is never any real sacrifice or pain (which comes from withdrawing from pernicious and bad things that feel so good in the short term), especially in things that would actually make a difference.

Sorry, I am not into sacrifice and pain. Please continue developing energy technologies so that I can live in a house with lights and running water, and have a car that can get me and my family around.

It would be nice if there were at least more options for people who actually want to forgo some energy usage to do so. Back when I lived in the U.S., I had to have a car and drive everywhere, because everything was laid out in such a car-oriented manner, and the transit was so bad. I didn't find it enjoyable or convenient, more of a kind of pain. I would've happily taken some of my energy consumption off the road, if there had been a decent alternative, but it was expected that I would burn this gas daily whether I wanted to or not, if I wanted a job anyway.

Yes, that's kind of how it is here. Unless you live in the handful of cities that have really stellar public transportation, you are a hardcore motorist.

may I ask whom you think is taking the lead in this area? Surely some country must meet this criteria?

What kind of sacrifice or pain? What steps have you done that constitute sacrifice and pain as part of your contribution? Yeah, being trite here, but I rarely find those professing a need for others to give up rarely do so themselves, they have endless levels of justification, usually starting with how smart they are.

Not using a car (not even having one, if it matters), conserving, recycling, buying new stuff minding that it'll eventually end up in the landfill. That kind of thing.

If you live on a farm or in the mountains, it's hard to go without a car. But living in a modern city in a first world country, there's rarely an excuse.

EDIT: also, consider stopping eating so much meat, because it's not sustainable either.

Nearly every prominent climate scientist disagrees strongly with you, and sees the current move towards fracking as climate suicide.

I'm sure you have them, but since the parent commenter was nice enough to supply sources for his claims, perhaps you could as well?

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UknaKlN7WMc

That's a very useful report but where does it support the claim of "the current move towards fracking as climate suicide"?

I wasn't able to find anything in there that is specifically about fracking.

What's more likely? That we'll convince people to cut their energy consumption in half, or convince people to purchase higher efficiency equipment and slowly move over to cleaner forms of energy as they become available? What's needed in the climate debate is a healthy dose of pragmatism.

What do you do when "pragmatism" doesn't produce the results you need?

Maybe convincing people to cut their energy consumption in half isn't in the cards. At the same time, maybe that is what is needed. The universe doesn't have to cooperate to give us pragmatic solutions.

If the "impossible" solution is required, and the "pragmatic" solution isn't sufficient... why should climate scientists advocate for the latter over the former?

Why wouldn't pragmatism produce the results needed? Moving over to Nuclear Power would, without a doubt, solve the climate crisis. Granted, it would introduce other challenges, but we're talking about the lesser of two evils here.

I don't think a rapid wholesale move to nuclear power is any more pragmatic than a rapid move to cut average per capita energy consumption in half.

One solution requires the economy to stall, the other does not. Take your best guess as to which one will have better public support.

Is there a point to ranking impractical solutions?

Impractical, yet exactly what France did..

In a different age, when public opinion on nuclear energy was substantially different.

Well, for one thing, the "impossible" comes with large error bars and thus is difficult to trust, even those trained in the sciences (or, perhaps, ESPECIALLY for those trained in the sciences). At least the pragmatic buys time, if nothing else.

I have a minority view: Climate change is now in a positive feedback loop (thawing tundra, forests burning, ocean acidification) and ceasing human activity won't stop it.

I believe we need to proactively remove atmospheric CO2. Retool our economy and industrial might for that job.

To do that, we need a strong economy.

I'm not saying more, cheaper fossil fuels is a good thing. I just think we should play the cards we're dealt (to ourselves).

I have often wondered if the CO2 is really the most dangerous ecological experiment we are applying to this planet at this point in history. It is, after all, a plant nutrient that eventually goes away over time. 3.5 billion years ago this planet was covered with methane and O2 was a trace poison to most existing life, until plant forms devoured the carbon and farted out O2 we all love. We are doing many kinds of "terraforming" on a planet wide scale, and CO2 is but one example.

But to effectively retool our economy requires a non-CO2 source of abundant power. I am not sure that nuclear as we know it now would fit the bill, because of the various construction and infrastructure costs. Using less is probably more practical then re-inventing nuclear power (iteratively improving nuclear power would still have value).

Trying to stay positive here, I hope:

- with solar capacity doubling every 30 months (1), once our electricity needs are met, we use excess capacity to produce hydrogen.

- we displace most fossil fuel with a combination of biodiesel (algae), cellulosic ethanol, and hydrogen.

- we clean up all our radioactive waste stockpiles, and generate electricity, with traveling wave reactors.

Source? I keep hearing this - but only see a small sampling of papers from the large scientific community.

I wouldn't say that oil demand has peaked from looking at that graph. I'd say it took a big hit right around the time of the 2008 financial crash and is recovering along with the rest of the economy, or perhaps lagging somewhat.

There's definitely a hit from the financial crash, but there's also been no increase since that drop for four straight years, during which the economy has presumably been recovering, albeit slowly; I suspect the decrease in retiring Boomers driving, decrease in new teenagers driving, increase in fuel efficiency, increase in non-driving entertainment like social networks, etc are all outweighing the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created since then. The huge growth in electric vehicles in the last 2-3 years[1] is probably to small to have an impact on that graph now, but give it a few more...

[1]http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/IV-AA467_ECARS_G_2...

Historically, GDP has been strongly correlated with fossil fuel consumption.

I've been wondering if that's still true.