3 Questions: Francis O'Sullivan on the climate impact of 'leaky methane'

Methane emissions have been underestimated over the past 20 years.
Credit: Deacon Macmillan/Creative Commons

Natural gas has been touted as a "bridge fuel" to a less carbon-intensive future, as it generates far less carbon dioxide than energy produced by burning coal. But the natural gas production, processing, and distribution system leaks methane, another powerful greenhouse gas. A study published today in the journal Science reports that federal estimates of methane emissions have consistently underestimated the methane leaking from the natural gas system over the last 20 years. The study's new estimates raise questions about natural gas's actual climate benefit.

MIT News spoke with co-author Francis O'Sullivan, director of research and analytics at the MIT Energy Initiative, about what the new estimates mean for the future of .

Q: What is "leaky methane," and what impact does it have on climate?

A: Leaky , or "fugitive" methane, is methane that is produced from natural gas or oil wells, but does not make it to the burner tip at the end of the pipe, or isn't combusted to fuel pipelines. Methane as a molecule is a very potent greenhouse gas—about 30 times more potent than on a 100-year basis, and much more so over a shorter-term basis. So even small leaks can have a very significant impact on climate change.

Currently, the [Environmental Protection Agency's] best guess is that the U.S. system leaks about 1.5 percent of gross production—28 million tons of methane per year. That is considered a very significant leak, because methane itself represents an appreciable portion of the total of the United States. So there's a need for focusing on minimizing fugitive .

Q: You found that the U.S. has been underestimating methane leakage over the past 20 years. How did you determine this, and what was the result?

A: Our study synthesized about 200 studies that involved everything from continental-scale atmospheric measurements to measurements of leaks from individual devices. Based on this work, the evidence consistently shows that actual measurements are about 1.5 times greater than what the EPA's inventorying method suggests. That's a gap of approximately 14 trillion grams of methane.

The EPA method assigns an emissions factor to everything. Take natural gas as one example: They say a particular operation or facility will leak a certain amount of methane per year. Then they multiply that factor by the number of stations or activities that took place—the activity factor—building up their inventory.

What our work shows is that [the EPA's] methodology underestimates the amount of methane being released because emissions and activity levels are not always accurate. There's a lot of work now involving going to facilities and measuring individual processes, and you find there's this broad distribution: Most pieces of equipment don't leak at all, while a few are "super-emitters" that release large amounts of methane. If you had a consistent level of emissions, you could build a reasonable statistical representation. But likely the EPA's emission factors were built on a data set that didn't quite capture these extreme events appropriately. And in that setting, you end up with underestimates.

Q: What do these new estimates of methane leakage mean in gauging the climate benefit of natural gas production?

A: There's a heated debate now with regard to the climate-change-mitigation benefits of moving from coal to gas in the power system. Although our study found natural gas leaks more methane than previously thought, the shift to natural gas is still a positive move for climate-change-mitigation efforts.

While a good move within the power sector, the shift to natural gas may not be positive for other sectors, like transportation. Substituting natural gas for gasoline appears to yield no appreciable climate benefits. In the case of diesel fuel, switching to natural gas would actually be a negative change for climate efforts. That's quite an important implication.

With that said, the fact that super-emitters are a significant source—and these super-emitters are often simply a mistake, like someone left a hatch or valve open in the system—[means that] you can have a very significant impact on reducing fugitive emissions if you can more effectively sample, sense the system, identify those super-emitters, and then deal with the problem. That opens up the vista for more rigorous sampling and monitoring campaigns, and new technology for remote sensing that would allow us to identify these leaks on a more cost-effective basis. This new technology is critical because if our policy is going to continue to focus on using gas as a "bridge fuel," we need to double down our efforts to mitigate the leaks.

Explore further

America's natural gas system is leaky and in need of a fix, new study finds

Journal information: Science

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Citation: 3 Questions: Francis O'Sullivan on the climate impact of 'leaky methane' (2014, February 14) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-02-francis-osullivan-climate-impact-leaky.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 15, 2014
But studied in an active basin. Would be interested to understand what they believe the contribution is from natural sources for methane.

A few things to note here:

:- The amount of gas trapped which is exploited by humans is a small fraction of the actual amount of gas generated in the earth at any location..
:- Natural fault leakage means most gas generated in the earth is not trapped, A significant amount of gas is released with tectonic activity in generating basins.

Calculating the amount of gas released globally is not trivial and my guess is that this is significantly underestimated. One way of approaching this is to ask how much seismic activity is going on, as ultimately this is your measure of fault failure and general tectonic activity.

So in this respect it is interesting to note the increase in seismic activity since the 1970's and that some academics have interpreted this as being climate change causing increased earthquakes as opposed to the opposite way around

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