Replacing coal with natural gas would reduce warming: study

Jul 18, 2012

A debate has raged in the past couple of years as to whether natural gas is better or worse overall than coal and oil from a global warming perspective. The back- and-forth findings have been due to the timelines taken into consideration, the details of natural gas extraction, and the electricity-generating efficiency of various fuels. An analysis by Cathles, which focuses exclusively on potential warming and ignores secondary considerations, such as economic, political, or other environmental concerns, finds that natural gas is better for electricity generation than coal and oil under all realistic circumstances.

To come to this conclusion, the author considered three different future fuel consumption scenarios: (1) a business-as-usual case, which sees energy generation capacity continue at its current pace with its current energy mix until the middle of the century, at which point the implementation of low-carbon energy sources dominates and fossil fuel-derived energy production declines; (2) a gas substitution scenario, where natural gas replaces all production and any new oil-powered facilities, with the same midcentury shift; and (3) a low- carbon scenario, where all is immediately and aggressively switched to non-fossil fuel sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear.

The author finds that the gas substitution scenario would realize 40 percent of the reduction in global warming that could be achieved with a full switch to low- carbon fuel sources. The benefit for mitigating warming revolves around the fact that to produce an equivalent amount of electricity burning natural gas would release less carbon dioxide than burning oil or coal. Though traps more outgoing radiation than carbon dioxide does, at reasonable leakage rates its is much lower and what is released decomposes much more quickly. The author suggests that over timescales relevant to large-scale warming-decades to centuries-the effect of any methane released during would be inconsequential.

Explore further: Selling and buying water rights

More information: Assessing the greenhouse impact of natural gas, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, doi:10.1029/2012GC004032 , 2012

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Americans using more fossil fuels

Nov 09, 2011

American energy use went back up in 2010 compared to 2009, when consumption was at a 12-year low. The United States used more fossil fuels in 2010 than in 2009, while renewable electricity remained approximately ...

Fracking leaks may make gas 'dirtier' than coal

Apr 12, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters (105:5).

Recommended for you

Selling and buying water rights

2 hours ago

Trying to sell or buy water rights can be a complicated exercise. First, it takes time and effort for buyers and sellers to find each other, a process that often relies on word-of-mouth, local bulletin boards, ...

Researchers track ammonium source in open ocean

18 hours ago

To understand the extent to which human activities are polluting Earth's atmosphere and oceans, it's important to distinguish human-made pollutants from compounds that occur naturally. A recent study co-authored ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2012
If only greenies had a brain ...
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2012
What, you mean us greenies don't have them? What was I thinking of? ... duhhhh.

Oh now I recall. The title of the article would be better if it said;
Replacing coal with COLD FUSION would reduce warming: study


No better yet;
Replacing coal with turkey meat would reduce warming: study


The actual truth is;
Replacing coal would reduce warming

Shootist
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2012
The bulk of the carbon sequestered in the ground was once in the air as CO2.

Coal, limestone, petroleum, et. al. All that sequestered CO2 is biological in origin. Be it, coal (carboniferous era plants), limestone (the exoskeletons of tiny sea critters) and petroleum/natural gas (various organics often buried in estuaries that were in turn buried).

All this carbon sequestering has occurred within the last ~500 million years, since the advent of multi-cellular life.

Since no one is proposing we burn all the coal, and all the gas, and all the petroleum and all the limestone, the atmosphere will never contain as much CO2 as it did ~500 million years ago.

AGW is a scheme, inspired by left leaning algores, to separate you from your money.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2012
This is why Enron supported Kyoto.
panorama
not rated yet Jul 19, 2012
"Natural Gas...It gives you some ideas!!!"

-Tad Ghostal
NotParker
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2012
Howhot, burning turkey meat would produce a lot of CO2.

Dumb greenie.

"A groundbreaking 2006 United Nations report found that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined"

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.