Methane Emissions From the Energy Sector Are 70% Higher Than Official Figures: IEA (iea.org) 32
New submitter Klaxton shares an excerpt from a new report released today by the International Energy Agency (IEA): Global methane emissions from the energy sector are about 70% greater than the amount national governments have officially reported, according to new IEA analysis released today, underlining the urgent need for enhanced monitoring efforts and stronger policy action to drive down emissions of the potent greenhouse gas. Methane is responsible for around 30% of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, and quick and sustained emission reductions are key to limiting near-term warming and improving air quality. Methane dissipates faster than carbon dioxide (CO2) but is a much more powerful greenhouse gas during its short lifespan, meaning that cutting methane emissions would have a rapid effect on limiting global warming.
The energy sector accounts for around 40% of methane emissions from human activity, and this year's expanded edition of the IEA's Global Methane Tracker includes country-by-country emissions from coal mines and bioenergy for the first time, in addition to continued detailed coverage of oil and natural gas operations. Methane emissions from the energy sector grew by just under 5% last year. This did not bring them back to their 2019 levels and slightly lagged the rise in overall energy use, indicating that some efforts to limit emissions may already be paying off. "At today's elevated natural gas prices, nearly all of the methane emissions from oil and gas operations worldwide could be avoided at no net cost," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. "The International Energy Agency has been a longstanding champion of stronger action to cut methane emissions. A vital part of those efforts is transparency on the size and location of the emissions, which is why the massive underreporting revealed by our Global Methane Tracker is so alarming."
If all methane leaks from fossil fuel operations in 2021 had been captured and sold, then natural gas markets would have been supplied with an additional 180 billion cubic meters of natural gas. That is equivalent to all the gas used in Europe's power sector and more than enough to ease today's market tightness. The intensity of methane emissions from fossil fuel operations range widely from country to country: the best performing countries and companies are over 100 times better than the worst. Global methane emissions from oil and gas operations would fall by more than 90% if all producing countries matched Norway's emissions intensity, the lowest worldwide.
The energy sector accounts for around 40% of methane emissions from human activity, and this year's expanded edition of the IEA's Global Methane Tracker includes country-by-country emissions from coal mines and bioenergy for the first time, in addition to continued detailed coverage of oil and natural gas operations. Methane emissions from the energy sector grew by just under 5% last year. This did not bring them back to their 2019 levels and slightly lagged the rise in overall energy use, indicating that some efforts to limit emissions may already be paying off. "At today's elevated natural gas prices, nearly all of the methane emissions from oil and gas operations worldwide could be avoided at no net cost," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. "The International Energy Agency has been a longstanding champion of stronger action to cut methane emissions. A vital part of those efforts is transparency on the size and location of the emissions, which is why the massive underreporting revealed by our Global Methane Tracker is so alarming."
If all methane leaks from fossil fuel operations in 2021 had been captured and sold, then natural gas markets would have been supplied with an additional 180 billion cubic meters of natural gas. That is equivalent to all the gas used in Europe's power sector and more than enough to ease today's market tightness. The intensity of methane emissions from fossil fuel operations range widely from country to country: the best performing countries and companies are over 100 times better than the worst. Global methane emissions from oil and gas operations would fall by more than 90% if all producing countries matched Norway's emissions intensity, the lowest worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to, they could do the same thing with solar in a fraction of the time. It would take up more space but it's not like you can put nuclear power plants on the rooftop of a Starbucks.
Re: (Score:2)
... but it's not like you can put nuclear power plants on the rooftop of a Starbucks.
Good News Everyone! [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can put a 9 foot wide, 65 foot high, 650 ton reactor on the roof of your local Starbucks? I think the ones near you might be a bit more massive and solidly built than the ones around... well pretty much anyone. Also, is your local Starbucks in a below-ground pool (one the size of a missile silo) covered by a concrete lid? Wouldn't the cake pops get soggy?
Re: (Score:3)
Shucks, I thought that link was going to be to a Futurama video, featuring nuclear-powered coffee!
Balance (Score:2)
If they wanted to, they could do the same thing with solar in a fraction of the time
Re: (Score:2)
You can do both.
Not as different as you think. (Score:1)
If they wanted to, they could do the same thing with solar in a fraction of the time.
Not with the same level of stability, and to replace even a handful of nuclear plants with solar would take a LOT of natural resources, not to mention battery materials if you wanted to emulate a stable baseload....
You underestimate how long it would take to build out a huge volume of solar panels, and underestimate how fast nuclear reactors can go up.
Re: (Score:3)
You underestimate how long it would take to build out a huge volume of solar panels, and underestimate how fast nuclear reactors can go up
Only someone living in a dream world can say something as nonsensical as this. In 2021 alone, globally, solar arrays worth around thirty 1GW nuclear units were installed. Recently it took global nuclear power plant fleet SIXTEEN YEARS to increase its generation by a similar amount (from 365 GW at the end of 2004 to 393 GW at the end of 2020).
Re: (Score:2)
You underestimate how long it would take to build out a huge volume of solar panels, and underestimate how fast nuclear reactors can go up
Only someone living in a dream world can say something as nonsensical as this. In 2021 alone, globally, solar arrays worth around thirty 1GW nuclear units were installed. Recently it took global nuclear power plant fleet SIXTEEN YEARS to increase its generation by a similar amount (from 365 GW at the end of 2004 to 393 GW at the end of 2020).
Global statistics for solar installation are virtually meaningless, in the sense that where the solar is located and the load characteristics in that region are highly relevant to it. Much less so for nuclear. Also don't mislead yourself looking at nameplate capacities, and understand that even average capacity isn't giving you an accurate picture when you're trying to do a comparison between those resources. A simple Google search will give you the details of why, but to scale solar to the point that it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear plants replace coal and natural gas plants, the only stable source of power than can truly reduce emission on a large scale in a short period of time.
Well... maybe a short period of time *after* all the extensive permit and regulatory processes, and NIMBY protesting, are done.
Yeah all that goes... (Score:1)
Well... maybe a short period of time *after* all the extensive permit and regulatory processes
That is what I am saying, all that goes right out the window if what they are saying about existing emissions of other forms of power is true.
Declare a world wide power emissions emergency, no permits needed, and just start building as many nuclear reactors as fast as you can, WPA style.
That would have a giant immediate effect (well within a year or so) on emissions - again if the emissions are really as bad as the
Re: (Score:2)
Even setting aside permitting, protests, legal battles, etc., a conventional nuclear power plant takes well over a year from green field to electric output. An unconventional power plant (e.g., small modular reactors, gen IV reactors) I would expect to take longer, just because they've never actually demonstrated it before.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear plants replace coal and natural gas plants, the only stable source of power than can truly reduce emission on a large scale in a short period of time.
I don't get it. Are you people completely blind to what is actually happening (e.g. Flamville) or do you get off on lying, lying and more lying?
Well, I think I know how to solve this (Score:2)
I mean, it worked for COVID.
pipeline problems (Score:3)
You drill a well and apparently you get both gas and liquid out of it, but you can't transport them both through the same pipeline. There's machinery that separates out the gas from the oil.
https://petrowiki.spe.org/Oil_... [spe.org]
"In most oil/gas processing systems, the oil/gas separator is the first vessel the well stream flows through after it leaves the producing well. "
The oil is generally more valuable, so apparently that gets the pipeline priority. If the gas isn't worth a separate pipeline they just flare it or dump it into the atmosphere, which is definitely harmful. Not sure what the IEA is suggesting as a solution if it can't be economically transported.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the IEA is suggesting as a solution if it can't be economically transported.
Stop extracting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Inject it back down the well, like they do with CO2 right now, for enhanced oil extraction?
40%.. (Score:2)
Took a look at the report and tracker, maybe I'm missing something but seems 100% focused on the energy sector; any breakdown of what the other 60% is?
Re: 40%.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was afraid of.
Global warming is bad but (Score:2)
Coal kills a lot more people when operating normally than nuclear reactors when they melt down and cause accidents.
And then there's wind and solar etc.. that don't even have large scale accidents.
It's like a constant ongoing accident running purposefully.
Satellites (Score:4, Interesting)
we got lucky with having monitoring stations in Hawaii and Alaska that detected china's illegal production of freon. But that was pure luck of China putting out more freon than any nation ever had, combined with monitoring stations located all along the entire north, central, and south America western coast. But if it comes from eastern Africa, we would not know, due to inability to get sensors everywhere.
Satellites will force all nations to clean up their act. In addition, it will help locate where business/government collude to hide it from the rest of world.
Re: (Score:2)
The existing satellites have largely been the domain of established space agencies (NASA/NOAA, ESA, etc.). I wonder if there is a business case to be made for one of the newer satellite imagery upstarts, like Planet Labs, to launch a constellation of smaller GHG-monitoring satellites. Less accuracy, resolution, and precision than existing satellite
Re: Satellites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is some action being taken on this. Next year the EU will start imposing border levies on imported goods based on the emissions generated in their production.
https://theconversation.com/ne... [theconversation.com]