You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The claim in today's @nytclimate that gas could be worse for the climate than coal with 4% leakage only applies to a 20-year time horizon. Leakage rates would need to be considerably higher for the same 100-year warming impact: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515300239 … @bradplumer @jswatzpic.twitter.com/j53bZwmB1J
Using a 20-year time horizon is somewhat problematic, because global radiative forcing is unlikely to peak in the next 20 years. Similarly, the largest climate impacts (and the largest benefit for CH4 mitigation) tend to happen later in the century.pic.twitter.com/rhAuviEjW6
Yep, I used the lowest threshold here to be safe, but agree with all these points
Yeh, they don't actually look at leakage values above 5%, but if you look at the figures it would probably have to be in the 8%+ range, at least when compared to standard pulverized coal plants:pic.twitter.com/YpwP1xGgdI
The important point for policy makers is that gas is NOT a “bridge fuel.” It is likely to be at least as bad as coal if not much worse
How much methane is leaking in Russia with natural gas production? Does anybody know?
I have the supplementary graph that scales real time GWP comparisons of new coal vs gas at different leak rates. Will share when I find it. Memory says 4% warming equivalent happens sometime around year 50. 6% over 65.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
