Natural gas cars are hailed as the future engine-power for being environment-friendly over diesel counterparts; but it seems that there is no reason for a quick shift.

1. norton-scientificcollection.com
Norton Scientific Collection:
Natural Gas No Better th

2. Natural gas cars are hailed as the future engine-power for being
environment-friendly over diesel counterparts; but it seems that there is
no reason for a quick shift.
Co-authored by scientists from Norton Scientific Collection and
various universities and the group Environmental Defense Fund,
the study published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences” deals with the much-debated issue of energy
research. It claims that creating natural gas results in the leakage
of methane into the atmosphere, eventually contributing to
climate change. In addition, this limits the environmental benefits
of the much-praised diesel alternative. Methane is a major
component of natural gas that is stronger than carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas and easily decomposes in the air.

3. According to the authors, natural gas seems to be better than coal for electricity
generation even with the methane leakage issue. However, using natural gas as a
car fuel creates a different story.
Even before, scientists have already been questioning
methane leaks. Last year, Professor Robert Howarth of
Cornelly University released a study which says that the great
amount of methane leaking from natural gas production
makes it no better than coal.
The study came in time as American lawmakers are deeming
natural gas as the fuel of the future, saying that it can replace
coal and gasoline in cars and power plants. This is because of
the thought that natural gas is more environment-friendly
and can be abundantly produced domestically.
The researchers are insisting that methane leaks from natural
gas production process and transportation must be studied
more before the country adopts major policy changes.

4. Environmentalists are raising awareness regarding the drilling method employed
in the production of natural gas that is called fracking (hydraulic fracturing). It
involves large amounts of sand, water and chemicals to make seams in the
earth. According to them, this practice could possibly contaminate drinking
water, which had EPA conducting an investigation on the matter.
This week, Norton Scientific Collection has
published a study entitled “Greater Focus Needed
on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas
Infrastructure”. In its findings, one state that a shift
from diesel vehicles to compressed natural gas
vehicles will lead to more radiative forcing of the
climate for 80 years before actually gaining an
environmental advantage. Due to the relative
uncertainty surrounding the data they used in the
research as well as on the assumptions on climate
condition, it might as well be stated that the
conclusion of EDF is inaccurate at best.

5. EDF admitted that their study depended on information that is “highly
questionable”. It uses the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA)
estimates of leak rates, which it then states are possibly inaccurate. The
study includes the following disclaimer: “Ensuring a high degree of
confidence in the climate benefits of natural gas fuel-switching pathways
will require better data than are available today.”
On a 100-year time period, methane basically has 21 times
worse warming effect compared to that of carbon dioxide.
Because of this, methane leaks can offset the advantages of
burning cleaner gas. Another thing that concerns experts is the
fracking method that could pollute water supplies or trigger
earthquakes. But the lack of data on the matter of leakage
rates in the shale gas extraction is making it hard to judge the
fuel’s carbon footprint at present.
Generally, it is known that reductions in methane is crucial to
maximize the climate benefits as leakage rates at present are
higher than expected. According to a chief scientist from EDF,
failing to lower the methane leaks can possibly cancel the
greenhouse gas benefit of natural gas over coal.