12 thoughts on “No free lunch.

  1. Not sure about “80 times” (most of the science I’ve seen uses 20).

    Regardless, it represents a main argument about going down this road that was Poo Pood by energy sycophant scientists selling their opinions and souls years ago.

    A big problem considering that methane over time BECOMES CO2…

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You are correct that CH4 quickly oxidizes to CO2 in the atmosphere.

      However, keep in mind that Natural Gas is displacing COAL for power generation and that whatever leakage there is is insignificant compared to the beneficial effects of that transition away form coal.

      Natural gas from fracking might compare unfavorably to generating electricity from unicorns running on treadmills, but natural gas exists.


        1. The article presumes natural gas will be used forever rather than as a transition fuel.

          You could say the same thing about coal.

          Natural gas as a transition to nuclear makes the best sense if total CO2 reduction is your goal. Not that it matters if China doesn’t do the same.

          But the stuff about CH4 being 72 or 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is garbage.

          First, there is very little of it compared to CO2. Second, it rapidly oxidizes to CO2.

          And most importantly, it is only more potent than CO2 in a dry atmosphere. We don’t have one of those.


          1. I noted that 20 times was more realistic, and your statement about “oxidation” being “rapid” and happening “quickly” are at odds with the science.

            8 years is neither.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. I believe the point being made is not that natural gas exists, but the fracking extraction process adds significantly to the methane levels in the atmosphere. And while it does transition to CO2, neither of which are beneficial to the atmosphere when the levels are higher than nature intends.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Welcome to club, Mister Murphy!

    After all these years (since 2002)?

    You “finally” recognized that’s there’s more than one greenhouse gas beyond CO2.

    When can I expect you to recognize manmade chemicals (such as ammonia and bleach, CFC’s and HFC’s)?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s