tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3189367191487418699..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Beyond ChurnalismEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1840175961194681312011-04-17T06:00:01.219-04:002011-04-17T06:00:01.219-04:00None of us ever called natural gas "pristine....None of us ever called natural gas "pristine." Jesus. We pointed out that its combustion products were far cleaner than coal's. Some people pointed out that lower-compression engines designed from the outset instead of converted from gasoline would produce fewer nitrogen pollutants, unlike diesels. Etc.<br /><br />We also pointed out that, regardless of the economics, burning off gas is wasteful and polluting: http://www.r-stahl.com/fileadmin/Dateien/ex-zeitschrift/2009/en/13_instead_of_burning_off_producing_gas.pdf<br /><br />I agree the NPR Marketplace thing is misleading. Also, the biggest complaint is about SHALE, for God's sake. To lump all natural gas together is just absolutely @#$@ing brain-dead.<br /><br />Neither shale nor "clean" coal will help one little bit.Marion Delgadohttp://fascistoar.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23810197953174732852011-04-16T20:18:59.595-04:002011-04-16T20:18:59.595-04:00The biggest problem with Howarth's study, even...The biggest problem with Howarth's study, even in his own words, is that he distorts the comparison of methane impacts with CO2 impacts by just quoting CO2 equivalents, which absurdly amplifies the impact of methane because it fails to take into account that methane oxidizes to CO2 in the atmosphere in about 10 years. Even where GWP (global warming potentials) are used, they are based on inappropriately short time frames, chosen explicitly so as to inflate the importance of methane leakage. If a fair accounting for lifetime were made, the effects of methane leakage would be fairly trivial compared to the effects of displacing coal. Actually, the beneficial impact of methane production is even greater when one takes into account that one can use methane (natural gas) in cogeneration plants, but not coal.<br /><br />Frakking is far from environmentally benign, and its environmental impacts need to be evaluated seriously. However, Howarth is using a dishonest greenhouse accounting scheme to inflate his argument. <br /><br />--raypierreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23433236640977375622011-04-15T13:12:28.961-04:002011-04-15T13:12:28.961-04:00Well, to be sure Eli would not, but YMMV.Well, to be sure Eli would not, but YMMV.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12748351080802148172011-04-15T06:39:31.969-04:002011-04-15T06:39:31.969-04:00Ref. "...you just have to taste the blather t...Ref. "...you just have to taste the blather to spot the rejectionists."<br /><br />Would it be overly rude to refer to them as 'Rejects' (with emphasis on the first syllable)? <br /><br />DeeenngeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70490465991726742782011-04-15T05:43:57.633-04:002011-04-15T05:43:57.633-04:00Miguelito -- "The gas that flows back after f...<i>Miguelito -- "The gas that flows back after fracking and drilling out plugs isn't vented. It's flared."</i><br /><br />Has much changed since 2004?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04809.pdf" rel="nofollow">US Government Accountability Office Report, to the Honorable Jeff Bingaman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate</a> (PDF)<br /><br /><i>"Gas produced during oil production is called associated gas. During oil and gas production, it may be necessary to burn or release natural gas for a number of operational reasons, including lowering the pressure to ensure safety. Burning natural gas is known as flaring, while releasing natural gas directly into the atmosphere is called venting. In addition to the operational reasons for flaring and venting, in areas where the primary purpose of drilling is to produce oil, producers flare or vent associated natural gas because no local market exists for the gas and transporting it to a market may not be economically feasible."</i><br /><br />No mention of only flaring back then. Does the EPA have a safety threshold for airborne benzene?J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73025806890884237022011-04-14T22:52:06.525-04:002011-04-14T22:52:06.525-04:00the modern US media almost never see actual educat...<i>the modern US media almost never see actual education of the public as their purpose.</i><br /><br />Hell, the actual education of <i>themselves</i> would be be a colossal victory. <br />--<br />Adam R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7706078154471780472011-04-14T21:06:27.217-04:002011-04-14T21:06:27.217-04:00Russell, you can start a huge fight at Pittcon if ...Russell, you can start a huge fight at Pittcon if you say the words infrared spectrophotometer (there are a hole bunch of fossils who think that a spectrophotometer can only refer to something that measures in the visible)EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39118149861708716782011-04-14T19:19:50.604-04:002011-04-14T19:19:50.604-04:00Problem is, Howarth's study starts off with a ...Problem is, Howarth's study starts off with a doozy of a flaw.<br /><br />The gas that flows back after fracking and drilling out plugs isn't vented. It's flared. Thus, their estimate of 1.9% of a well's lifetime production being vented to the atmosphere is very likely very overestimated. In the low case, while the CO2 from the flare has its footprint, their total carbon footprint is likely doubled or more than doubled in its direct methane emissions. <br /><br />I'm surprised that Ingraffea didn't see this (he's an old pro in the oil and gas industry).<br /><br />I do sympathize with Howarth on how to obtain information with which to do this kind of estimate. Companies hold onto their data with an iron fist and fight every attempt to make them submit more. They say they want policy based on science, but won't release the data with which to support those studies.<br /><br />Finally, there's how not to respond to something like this. I present the Marcellus Shale Coalition. How can anybody have a fruitful dialog with anybody like this?<br /><br />http://marcelluscoalition.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study-courtesy-of-energy-in-depth/Miguelitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21143291940479229352011-04-14T17:37:56.434-04:002011-04-14T17:37:56.434-04:00So the theory is that Good Methane is that which e...So the theory is that Good Methane is that which escapes from Democrats and Progressive Statesmen, while the vile mephitic exhalations of Republicans and other Low Whigs must be the bad kind.<br /><br />Hmm.. I seem to have bought my infrared spectrophotometer from a Federalist, as it balks at distinguishing between the two.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68646698873518289102011-04-14T17:28:23.442-04:002011-04-14T17:28:23.442-04:00Fracking can do wonders to the local water supply:...Fracking can do wonders to the local water supply:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQMA0zwMM4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19412337490353911742011-04-14T16:23:30.144-04:002011-04-14T16:23:30.144-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonathan Gilliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09065480842704814847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37221434472065920062011-04-14T16:23:16.291-04:002011-04-14T16:23:16.291-04:00"Eli is however rather annoyed that they do t..."Eli is however rather annoyed that they do the GWP for methane in terms of per mass C, while the effect, of oourse is per molecule"<br /><br />I don't follow. In my little brain, the per-mass-carbon and per-molecule calculations are identical for CH4 and CO2 (both have 12 grams carbon per mole). What am I missing?Jonathan Gilliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09065480842704814847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2112915295956195532011-04-14T13:15:48.988-04:002011-04-14T13:15:48.988-04:00Some minor notes on terminology:
The "journa...Some minor notes on terminology:<br /><br />The "journalism of rejection" is "spurnalism"<br /><br />The "journalism of FUD" is "blurnalism"<br /><br />The "journalism of interpretation" is "infernalism" (also known as delingpolism)<br /><br />..and coming up with a definition for "kloornalism" is best left as an exercise for the reader.Horatio Algeranonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988805467080448954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56805862696171569092011-04-14T09:15:27.710-04:002011-04-14T09:15:27.710-04:00I guess my point is, the modern US media almost ne...I guess my point is, the modern US media almost never see actual education of the public as their purpose. They'll take somebody's words verbatim but, as in this case, *remove the explanatory stuff*. Because that explanatory stuff almost always involves boring things like numbers and history and scientific jargon that no self-respecting member of the general public really wants to add to the overflowing information stores already in their little heads. The public (from the media's perspective) wants the drama, the action, the two sides battling it out. What exactly the battle is concerned with, well, who cares, really?<br /><br />You'll see this pattern just about every time there's some major political struggle over complex legislation; media reports on what is actually *IN* the legislation only come out in any detail *after it has been agreed on*. Up to that point almost 90% of coverage will be on who's ahead, who's trying to come from behind, rounding up votes, arguing about completely made-up issues that have little to do with the actual substance.<br /><br />Blogs have started to help on all this, but you'll still see almost nothing from major newspapers in this area, and the chances of getting any detailed explanatory stuff on TV news are close to infinitesimal. Not their job.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70945834402435710022011-04-14T05:51:40.777-04:002011-04-14T05:51:40.777-04:00But the methane that escapes through the mining pr...But the methane that escapes through the mining process is the bad methane. <br /><br />The good methane is the natural gas that's piped to homes, which gets burnt up on the gas stove anyway, so it turns into harmless CO2 and water and energy.<br /><br />/sarcSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4882293325329866912011-04-13T21:17:16.129-04:002011-04-13T21:17:16.129-04:00I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that natural gas is...I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that natural gas is contaminated with methane. Yuck (!) and double yuck (!!)<br /><br />Natural gas must be good. That must be why they call it "natural". Unlike "unnatural gas" which is artificial and therefore must be bad. <br /><br />We need researchers to figure out how to get remove the methane from natural gas, leaving only the pure natural goodness of natural gas. Like the crunchy low-fat granola of fossil fuels. <br /><br />*****NOTE TO THE HUMOR-IMPAIRED*****<br />Before you write in to correct me...Yes, I realize that natural gas is methane (+ some small amounts of other alkanes). <br /><br />The above is a joke. J O K E. <br /><br />I.am.an.ACS.member! So.there.John Farleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01589237239187934891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44558044285493369082011-04-13T21:01:31.128-04:002011-04-13T21:01:31.128-04:00Eli is a perfectionist.
GOPers don't know the...Eli is a perfectionist.<br /><br />GOPers don't know the difference between 105 and 38.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85769941265950328242011-04-13T19:38:42.348-04:002011-04-13T19:38:42.348-04:00Steve, signs are that it is pretty straight, he in...Steve, signs are that it is pretty straight, he included the methane released by coal mining in the data. Eli is however rather annoyed that they do the GWP for methane in terms of per mass C, while the effect, of oourse is per molecule. That reduces the 20 year multiplier for methane vs coal from 105 to 38EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76815131786745732582011-04-13T15:44:24.926-04:002011-04-13T15:44:24.926-04:00Well, they also don't tell you what the office...Well, they also don't tell you what the office of the President is, or the Senate, or the House. They will explain unusual stuff as it comes up - the impeachment and conviction process when Clinton was impeached, for instance, or during the last Congress, details on how cloture works in the Senate.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15172194631561337252011-04-13T15:30:31.307-04:002011-04-13T15:30:31.307-04:00Yes, well, I figured out pretty quickly that it st...Yes, well, I figured out pretty quickly that it stood for Republican. But it was still many years before I heard what the initials stood for. And it's only just now that I've learned where the name came from (thanks).<br /><br />But here's the thing: have you *ever* seen a US news media report that used the term GOP explain it? They don't think it's their job. If you don't understand what the codes and words they use mean, well, just enjoy the ride, they don't really care to explain it. You're just supposed to know that stuff. Or not know it. You're not supposed to care.<br /><br />Same with methane and natural gas. You're not supposed to care. What does it matter? :)Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14534155677703266842011-04-13T14:39:53.621-04:002011-04-13T14:39:53.621-04:00Arthur said: "Back to the complaints topic ag...Arthur said: "Back to the complaints topic again - journalists don't feel it's their job to "explain" anything that's in the "sphere of consensus".<br />...<br />"Not their job. Their job is to entertain, not inform."<br /><br />Which brings items like <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/13/mark-lynas-error-cost-nuke-op-ed/" rel="nofollow">this.</a> <br /><br />Meanwhile while running to google scholar on the ethanol question, don't forget good old Pubmed: <br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=ethanol biofuel <br /><br />and don't neglect water as in item 4: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21405015" rel="nofollow">Water footprint of u.s. Transportation fuels.</a><br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91835295631560166822011-04-13T14:12:08.045-04:002011-04-13T14:12:08.045-04:00Arthur:
GOP stands for the "Grand Old Party&...Arthur:<br /><br />GOP stands for the "Grand Old Party".<br /><br />"The nickname of the Republican Party [Grand Old Party] didn't get attached to it until 1888. Previously, the nickname had been used by Southern Democrats. After the Republicans won back the Presidency and Congress for the first time since the Grant administration, the Chicago Tribune proclaimed: "Let us be thankful that under the rule of the Grand Old Party ... these United States will resume the onward and upward march which the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884 partially arrested."dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54993312533094830952011-04-13T13:38:36.249-04:002011-04-13T13:38:36.249-04:00@Steve Bloom
Actually Pimental's LCA work on ...@Steve Bloom<br /><br />Actually Pimental's LCA work on ethanol is piss poor. He (and Patzek) engage in the kind of cherry picking/use of old data that we normally only see from the "no warming since 98'" crowd...<br /><br />see <a href="http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/emissions_balance.html" rel="nofollow"> here </a> for a nice graphic and <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/506.abstract" rel="nofollow"> here </a> for the details.<br /><br />I doubt that Horwath's analysis suffers from the same defects as Pimentel's but I'll reserve judgement until I see a few more studies to see how it holds up...Marlowe Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06497415494967921609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20261604321780036252011-04-13T11:18:28.154-04:002011-04-13T11:18:28.154-04:00Back to the complaints topic again - journalists d...Back to the complaints topic again - journalists don't feel it's their job to "explain" anything that's in the "sphere of consensus". Even more so now that everything's in wikipedia :)<br /><br />When I first returned to the US after growing up in Canada, I was immensely puzzled by news reports everywhere about "GOP". What was this "GOP" thing, and what did it have to do with the two main parties in the US? It took a few years of mild puzzlement before I discovered what it stood for, and I still have no idea why it's used as a nickname the Republican party.<br /><br />Not their job. Their job is to entertain, not inform. Teachers and professors have a hard time understanding the mentality.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34484843428823650452011-04-13T11:14:36.556-04:002011-04-13T11:14:36.556-04:00Off the complaints topic here, I'm wondering i...Off the complaints topic here, I'm wondering if some extra methane might be a *good* thing for the politics of the issue. I.e. it's more a short-term threat than a long-term one, so it brings impacts sooner, but (if replacing CO2) delays the worse long-term ones. Therefore it's likely to enhance the overall desire for action. Seems like a good idea to me.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.com