BBC News - Shale gas 'worse than coal' for climate

Greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas are predominantly down to two things: carbon dioxide produced when the gas is burned, and methane that leaks out while the well is being exploited.

Figures from the US government and industry indicate that at least a third more methane leaks from shale gas extraction than from conventional wells - and perhaps more than twice as much.

...Figures from this research team indicate that over a 20-year period, the net warming impact of using shale gas is worse than coal - and, perhaps more surprisingly, that conventional gas may be worse than coal as well.

Over a 100-year timeframe, conventional gas is almost certainly better than coal - but shale gas could be worse.

(The actual paper is here, and there is an accompanying second paper on indirect CO2 emissions here.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Reasons:

1. The Guardian thinks of themselves as essentially a CENTRE-left paper, mostly centre and balanced, Jenkins is there for the balance against the historical presence of Milne and others.

2. Jenkins is actually mostly Kenyesian, which makes 1 in 10 of his columns more sense than you'd expect.

3. There's a fair number on the left who are basically now old and small 'c' conservative, especially about things like architecture and landscape.

After a night of sleep I'd say that Jenkins justifies his own preferences by concluding there is no honest 'mathematician' he can approach. So he can make do with the ones he likes personally.

1. Establish that the only evidence which counts is that produced by people who have no vested interest in the outcome whatsoever. (Or some other arbitrary unachievable standard that you would never apply to any other area of your life - two particular favourites of mine are "science doesn't know everything" and "but conventional medicine can't cure cancer either.*")
   
2. Establish that no evidence presented meets your perfect Platonic ideal form of Evidence^TM. (Surprise, surprise...)
   
3. Having thus thrown out all the evidence, pick whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

- Jake

*What makes it this fallacy rather than the tu quoque fallacy is that scientific medicine is actually quite good at curing many sorts of cancer. So the fallacy amounts to insisting that until science can cure all cancers, you should choose old wives' tales over effective medicine.

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

Which displays? Do you dispute that there have been legitimate arguments and counter-arguments in the debate (whether you/Migeru/Jenkins means the general debate or the one on The Guardian or the one here in this diary)?

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

I do think that what he does is even worse: he presents the ones he likes personally as different, as fundamentally closer to neutrality than those he denounces as fanatics. The sentences referencing Dieter Helm are immediately followed by and contrasted with a jibe at government choosing the most expensive options.

The complexity involved should only allow technocrats in the temples

If it came to this, which ET members would you count among the technocrats in the temples? As for other experts, would you count Helm among them? (He is an economist, not an engineer.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

The complexity involved should only allow technocrats in the temples - so the question becomes, do we have faith in technocrats to lead us through the desert?

The point of technocrats is that they try to rely on facts and can be checked by other technocrats and experts, which is how technocrats and experts are supposed to work (i.e. with respect, if not to "truth" at least to the scientific method which allows for verification and the weeding of false ideas and opinions).

And even in energy there are hard facts. It is in fact rather easy to distinguish between hard facts, assumptions about the future, and political preferences - for example, the capacity factor of a plan is a fact, the price of gas in 10-years time is a guesstimate and the discount rate used to value a kWh produced in 10 years' time is a political choice.


Wind power

I'd say it's inherent to the system - with a known possibility with a low probability that has not occurred, we take our chances. All the rest is fodder for CGI doom-scenario's on National Geographic which we can switch off at our own leisure.

BTW, the effects of a solar storm as strong as in 1859 would be enhanced also because the earth's magnetic field has been weakening for at least 150 years, with a loss of strength estimated up to 15%.

Let's qualify that. Shorter lines mean lower induced voltages. If there is a warning, transformers can be disconnected, meaning a planned blackout without equipment damage. For warning, NOAA, NASA and ESA established space weather forecasts. Of these, NASA's Solar Shield offers transformer-level prediction, and this year they began to expand it to Europe. Of course, this is still in development and still comes far short of a full solution that would involve the mandatory installation of anti-GIC systems.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

See, a successful businessman. Most inventors become one out of obsession or love with some idea, Edison became an inventor because he met an inventor in his quest to become a businessman and realised there is money to be made. Then he laboured hard to find a working idea, and used his first (and possibly only) invention to establish the prototype of a modern private sector research lab, with patent rights for the research of his employees belonging to him. Stealing/buying the inventions/patents of others came on top of that.

Like Microsoft.

Precisely. He was the Bill Gates of his age.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}