Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:13:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vgbrfj$16vbr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfrvbu$1pcpr$1@dont-email.me> <vfrvtc$1pfke$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfs2l7$1psvq$1@dont-email.me> <vgbelr$14lgg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 02:13:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f1515b5175e4acda8d5357bc03058e85";
	logging-data="1277307"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2Q6rQoXrd0i6+Nzpgrgr0xYi5+U0n5Hw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W7eSPhfruT6Y33ry848ez7HiSe0=
In-Reply-To: <vgbelr$14lgg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2522

On 11/4/2024 4:34 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 30/10/2024 01:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> I'd like to see some numbers on this.
>>
>> Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
>> methane.
>>
>> But:
>>
>> A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
>> and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
>> about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
>> has started mapping the problem:
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just- 
>> mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
>>
>> Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
>>
>> AND
>>
>> Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
>> gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
>>
>> This is mitigated by the fact that methane only  lasts about 10
>> years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
>>
>> https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
>>
>> So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
>> claim, not a simple declaration.
> 
> I understand that methane in the sky is slowly
> converted to CO2.

Yes, and far faster then CO2 gets recycled. But it's also a far
more portent as a greenhouse gas, pound for pound, as C02. Numbers
matter, and figuring out the relative contribution of each to
warming \caused is a non-trivial calculation.

pt