Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so when it’s leaking by the ton, it’s a $50 billion problem. The New York Times described the phenomenon of methane leakage in a recent article which raised questions about the true costs of this waste.
The EPA estimates that 3 trillion cubic feet of the invisible gas unintentionally escape into the atmosphere each year from patchy gas and oil wells, pipelines, and tanks. This accidental loss alone is equivalent to about half of the global warming power of all U.S. coal power plants emissions. That is the same climate impact of a quarter billion cars.
Roger Peilke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, does an admirable job of estimating the commercial value cost of leaking methane at $24 billion. But there is more to the story—the cost to society of this methane leakage adds up to a much higher number.
Methane, like CO2, carries a social cost which must be accounted for—each ton emitted into the atmosphere exacts a toll. Weather variability will threaten crops; rising sea levels will submerge coastal lands; insurance premiums will rise as more homes are at risk of flooding and fires. As global warming worsens, these costs will become sharper, causing economic pain across the globe. Though no one benefits from leaking methane, we all pay for its effect on our climate.
Recently, the Department of Energy used a conservative estimate, $19, to price out the cost to society of a ton of CO2 emissions. Knowing that, and the fact that methane is 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide, we can do some simple multiplication and determine that the social cost of leaky methane hovers around $29 billion annually. This is in addition to Professor Peilke’s commercial value lost, bringing the grand total to over $50 billion.
The irony here is—no one benefits from these leaks. Companies certainly don’t profit from the lost revenue. So if no one benefits, and we will be charged $50 billion for the privilege, why not enforce monitoring and sealing of these leaks?
As the Times noted, next year Japan will release data from the Gosat satellite which will most likely show hot spots of methane gas pouring into the skies from the worst offenders: Russia, the United States, Ukraine, and Mexico. We’ll be confronted with the images of our total emissions of this global warming gas, and it’s probably not a pretty picture. Leaky methane is only part of the overall problem, but the cost-benefit analysis on fixing it is a no-brainer.
There is also a larger lesson to be learned here: our actions have consequences, and some cost more money than others. If we really want to spew methane into the atmosphere in a wasteful and unnecessary way, we must be prepared to pay the price—in this case, over $50 billion. And if we want to continue to rely on dirty coal power plants to generate our electricity, we must be prepared to pay that bill as well—one that is at least $120 billion per year (not even including climate change costs). And if we refuse to invest in controls on our heat-trapping emissions, then we should realize we are likely making a bad bet, one that could wreak havoc on American and global economies.
Comments
View as Flat
neosapiens Posted 8:37 am
26 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:09 am
26 Oct 2009
http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html
Ag related methane emissions plus the natural gas and oil production leakage plus melting related methane release might actually exceed all human related combustion as a source of climate change.
Maybe the satellite information will better define the problem. How to get US oil and gas industry to plug their leaks? That will be nearly impossible. But getting Russian and other national gas and oil industries to do it? Clearly impossible.
It's really too bad, it would seem that the profit motive might make it happen, but it hasn't so far. So why/how would it happen without an actual army of inspectors and repair crews backed by law enforcement? pretty sad, that's how the climate crumbles..er, bakes.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:51 am
26 Oct 2009
It is shipped in on tankers from Russia now to grow our subsidized grain crops.
How much GHG would going to organic fertilizer save, just in terms of replacing ammonia fertilizer? Nitrous oxide, a 300 times worse GHG than CO2, is emitted by ammonia fertilizer too.
Permalink
wyrick Posted 1:53 pm
26 Oct 2009
Regardless, it is a wasted resource that is damaging our environment. The natural gas system in the US leaked about 400 Billion cubic feet in 2008 down almost 20% from 2000. My understanding is that most of the leakage happens at the distribution system (ie your local utility).
Here in Chicago, we have nearly 2,000 miles of aged leaking gas mains; some as old as the 1850's. Fortunately for the utility, the amount of leaked gas is estimated and accounted for based on gas brought into the system and amount passing through meters. Unfortunately for everyone else, this cost is recouped in the rate base and is not seen as lost revenue. The Illinois Commerce Commission has thus far been unwilling to provide rate relief to accelerate the retirement of the aging infrastructure beyond the current plan of ~50 miles per year.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:09 pm
26 Oct 2009
If natural gas were used in fuel cell/turbines at 70% efficiency as distributed backup for a renewable smart power grid, with the waste heat captured, and building heating were done with ground source heat pumps running on renewable electricty, then the gas lines to individual buildings could be eliminated.
Only main lines to distributed generators would be necessary and these could be replaced faster and cheaper than the whole present gas infrastructure. Biogas could be filtered and added into the system too, eventually turning natural gas into a barely used backup fuel.
Manufacturing uses of natural gas could be outfited with fuel cell cogeneration and converted to concentrating solar furnace heating.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:31 pm
26 Oct 2009
For instance, in a factory there maybe serveral ovens at several different temperatures, these could be fed waste heat from a fuel cell running on natural gas, in the right proportion to maintain the temperasture of each oven. The fuel cell extracts 50% of the energy in the gas in electricty for the grid, then the other 50% heats the ovens, then a collector brings all the waste heat together where it goes through a closed cycle turbine generator.
The generator can also feed off of the waste heat from cooling products like glass or metal. A combination solar furnce and gas fuel cell powered factory would be best. The high percentage of solar insolation in desert or mountain regions would make this a good choice.
There is a much better way to use natural gas, with far less pipe to leak from. Once again this is a whole industry that cries out for US leadership. Our R&D scientists and engineers discovered all this stuff.
By making local factories backup power sources for the grid, reliability in case of storms is greatly enhanced, local areas would be independent in emergencies.
Permalink