tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post8066872656889359079..comments2023-12-26T05:33:56.740-05:00Comments on John Hanger's Facts of The Day: Statement: Is Natural Gas A Bridge To Nowhere, As Joe Romm Says?John Hangerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06565915866938789295noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-84159678142599770822012-01-29T09:03:55.840-05:002012-01-29T09:03:55.840-05:00Interesting discussion.Interesting discussion.Airconditioning Melbournehttp://www.daleair.com.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-75631408732499511202012-01-27T20:09:48.326-05:002012-01-27T20:09:48.326-05:00Unfortunately, no, I don't have anything more ...Unfortunately, no, I don't have anything more than what's above, except for the original from a few months back and the only things I snipped from it to make this post were comments about the leakage rates.<br /><br />http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2011/09/climate-study-underlines-paradox-of.htmlMiguelitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-38666313028349596352012-01-27T11:54:46.848-05:002012-01-27T11:54:46.848-05:00I sent you an email and would be glad to talk.I sent you an email and would be glad to talk.John Hangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06565915866938789295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-3879586406438187872012-01-27T09:24:49.558-05:002012-01-27T09:24:49.558-05:00Miguelito - have you written up anything that summ...Miguelito - have you written up anything that summarizes the points above about the NCAR study? Can you point me to a link? ThanksConcerned Scientistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-11388199337647598842012-01-27T09:23:22.189-05:002012-01-27T09:23:22.189-05:00Tim
It is an enormous issue - it will be the bigg...Tim<br /><br />It is an enormous issue - it will be the biggest issue someday. Ironically shale gas is the best news we have had on the issue for 20 years. Our emissions are falling and we don't have to change our behavior at all. In fact energy is getting cheaper! Anything that requires paying more or changing our lifestyle in any significant way isn't going to be popular and any politician who tries to push through a carbon tax or anything like that better keep their resume updated. It's sad but true. <br /><br />Shale gas also puts off the worst impacts of peak oil which will include more coal mining, more heavy oil and more wars for oil. All of these will exacerbate global warming. <br /><br />If I were in charge of PR for shale gas companies, I would be making ads that show decreasing carbon emissions and other pollution, cheaper energy bills and more jobs - all as a result of shale gas! And it has the benefit of being true!Concerned Scientistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-51053514700144824312012-01-27T09:17:53.961-05:002012-01-27T09:17:53.961-05:00Miguelito - Your analysis is the clearest I have h...Miguelito - Your analysis is the clearest I have heard. It seems like the way to get your paper a lot of press and to get on NPR is to write something where gas ends up looking bad. <br /><br />Has anyone written a discussion of the NCAR paper that points this out? It won't get any press but it would be good to correct the record within the climate science world. <br /><br />Interesting that the closer a paper gets to accurate the less press it gets. I guess good news just doesn't sell.Concerned Scientistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-78439526838879838452012-01-26T20:19:17.291-05:002012-01-26T20:19:17.291-05:00John,
Thanks for taking the time to write this an...John,<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to write this analysis. It and the commments were very instructive. The thing that's missing from almost the entire energy equation, in my opion, is a universal understanding and acceptance of what our carbon emissiona are doing to the planet. As a "root-causer", I am concerned that the sense of urgency is lacking, in contrast to, say, a more tangible threat to our security. Obama's near silence on the issues of global warming and ocean acidification have led to an informational vacuum that allows his opponents the opportunity to get away with all kinds of criminal mischief. The harassment of our researchers is just one example.<br /><br />What I'm getting at here is the transition would be happening faster if we could kill the denial. There would be no room for opposition.<br /><br />I was encouraged, however, to see the video from the United Nations Investors Summit (available on Youtube). There was a LOT of climate reality in the room. That was refreshing.Tim Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-75724137282244378842012-01-26T19:33:27.391-05:002012-01-26T19:33:27.391-05:00First, an abridged version of a comment I made her...First, an abridged version of a comment I made here on the Wigley paper a few months back. In short, the Wigley paper is completely unreliable representation of any carbon-policy world where coal use is reduced to reduce overall GHG emissions, and it mirrors your comments, John.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />This paper is not nearly as good as the spin it's getting. Simply put, he's treating gas as a partial replacement fuel and not a bridge fuel.<br /><br />If you look at what Wigley has done, he starts with non-policy scenario of increased coal usage out to about 2110 (quadrupling the burning of coal), before the overall burning of coal beings to decrease (kind of like peak coal).<br /><br />Then, to model fuel-switching, he starts switching gas with coal such that gas replaces 50% of coal burning by 2050 and no more after that. Ultimately, gas-use quadruples by 2110. Coal use still manages to double by then (less of it being used, but it's still growing, especially if gas use is capped at 50% at 2050).<br /><br />Well, of course, if we quadruple gas use by 2110 and double coal use, there are probably going to be GHG issues. As stated before, in his model, he's treating gas as a replacement fuel and not a bridge fuel. He also doesn't include any coal being switched with other sources of energy like solar, wind, hydro, etc... Remember: fuel switching is not going to occur in a policy vacuum, but where other, much cleaner fuels will also be used to take coal out of the fuel mix. And it's this total fuel mix we need to know the emissions of.<br /><br />So, the conclusions aren't very reliable unless people were seriously considering burning that much coal and gas that far into the future, which I hope policy makers weren't. <br /><br />----<br /><br />Second, I've tried to get comments like this onto Romm's site before, this most recent one and an earlier one, only to get hung up in his comment-moderation process (i.e. he never approves them to show up on his blog).<br /><br />I'd hope that I'm caught up in his spam filter. Otherwise, it means what I'm saying doesn't fit his narrative, thus it must be stopped before it contaminates anybody else.Miguelitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-36826329832612721342012-01-26T15:31:12.657-05:002012-01-26T15:31:12.657-05:00John - Can you contact me about presenting for the...John - Can you contact me about presenting for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Smart Energy Initiative? <br /><br />wwilliams@cceconomicdevelopment.com<br />http://smartenergypa.org/contact.aspWill @ SEPA Smart Energy Initiativehttp://www.smartenergypa.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4664957094233317169.post-56896890674692664022012-01-26T07:39:09.279-05:002012-01-26T07:39:09.279-05:00Great post - I saw that post over there at Climate...Great post - I saw that post over there at Climate progress. They make the perfect the enemy of the good. <br /><br />The warming that comes from stopping coal burning should be linked to coal not whatever replaces it. Apparently, even if coal burning stopped and was not even replaced with anything the temperature would go up because the cooling effect of the sulfate aerosols would be reduced and the full effect of the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere would then cause the climate to warm. Romm is saying this is a bad thing about replacing coal with gas, but it is really a bad thing about coal. If we replace coal with wind or solar the same thing will happen.<br /><br />I think Romm may be driven by hatred of oil companies as much or more than he is driven by a desire to avert a global warming catastrophe. There are many posts over there about the high price of gasoline that suggest gouging by oil companies. Of course nothing cuts gasoline consumption (and therefore emissions) more than high prices so they should be cheering high prices. This hatred of oil companies is probably what motivates Howarth and many of the anti-shale gas people. Oil companies are their "evil other" so nothing they do could possibly be beneficial. <br /><br />Romm used to be pro-shale gas until it became a reality and then he quickly switched over. Can't be on the same side as the oil companies. The same thing happened with Robert Kennedy Jr.Concerned Scientistnoreply@blogger.com