• 0 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle


  • Certainly. I too commented on that. They’re letting profits literally float away. However what those researchers feel is maddening, to the capitalists is justifiable.

    Why spend a dollar to retain a kilogram of methane from escaping, when that same dollar could be used to extract ten kilograms of methane? Repairing the infrastructure would be a lower return on investment, and that’s all that matters to them. They serve the bottom line.

    If it were more profitable to repair and maintain the infrastructure, the infrastructure would be repaired and maintained. Alas it isn’t, and so the leaks continue.



  • I saw last week the Gas Leaks Project published some more data on this subject. The largest leak they found was something like 50-60 times higher than the EPA definition of a ‘super emitter’. Incredible really.

    When compared to coal, methane is obviously much more efficient at energy generation. But this is true when we measure only the material burned, not when we look at the supply chain. With methane being 80-90 times more damaging to the atmosphere than the byproducts of burning coal, the end result is very tight once these leaks are accounted for.

    So tight that, given the reporting requirements for methane leaks are ‘we trust you to use the honour system’, it’s more likely than not methane is doing more damage per resulting kilowatt than coal ever has. The equivalent ‘leaking’ for the coal supply chain is a lump of it falling off a train car and becoming a rock, to the benefit of only one guy. Rocks don’t tend to destroy the air, only naughty children’s Christmas mornings.

    Of course this isn’t to suggest we build more coal infrastructure, just to point out that with these methane leaks being so prevalent, it’s not remotely as useful an energy source as has been believed. Remember a decade ago when ‘bridge fuel’ was mentioned in every conversation about clean energy? Honestly it’s shocking that these companies have deemed it cheaper to not even look for leaks than to keep the product they sell from floating away.

    Here's an interesting quote from former Exxon mechanical engineer, Dar-Lon Chang:

    "When they were marketing natural gas as clean energy, they didn’t really know what they were talking about because they were fixated on the idea that natural gas, when burned, produces half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal.

    The industry was not monitoring methane leakage, so they did not have data about how much was leaking, and there wasn’t much appetite for management to measure methane leakage because if they found out there was a problem they would have to do something about it."

    Source (I lost the timestamp, but it’s in part three, apologies)










  • Manuel Moroun ran a television commercial years ago explicitly addressed to Trump begging him to help stop this new bridge.

    The Moroun family owns the Ambassador Bridge, collecting a $50 toll from each of a few hundred trucks that cross it daily. They also own the duty free shops on either side I believe. Of course they have opposed a publicly owned bridge since the day it was proposed.

    It’s not surprising Trump would be stoking the flames here. Support an old billionaire buddy’s family while simultaneously distracting from both the Epstein files and ICE? Three birds with one stone. Unfortunately for him, the time to stop the Gordie Howe was before it was built, not after billions have been spent.

    This might result in delays, but the only thing coming from that is more resentment from the people that paid for it.