Anthony J. Marchese, Colorado State University and Dan Zimmerle, Colorado State University

Natural gas is displacing coal, which could help fight climate change because burning it produces fewer carbon emissions. But producing and transporting natural gas releases methane, a greenhouse gas that also contributes to climate change. How big is the methane problem?

For the past five years, our research teams at Colorado State University have made thousands of methane emissions measurements at more than 700 separate facilities in the production, gathering, processing, transmission and storage segments of the natural gas supply chain.

This experience has given us a unique perspective regarding the major sources of methane emissions from natural gas and the challenges the industry faces in terms of detecting and reducing, if not eliminating, them.

Our work, along with numerous other research projects, was recently folded into a new study published in the journal Science. This comprehensive snapshot suggests that methane emissions from oil and gas operations are much higher than current EPA estimates.

What’s wrong with methane

One way to quantify the magnitude of the methane leakage is to divide the amount of methane emitted each year by the total amount of methane pumped out of the ground each year from natural gas and oil wells. The EPA currently estimates this methane leak rate to be 1.4 percent. That is, for every cubic foot of natural gas drawn from underground reservoirs, 1.4 percent of it is lost into the atmosphere.

This study synthesized the results from a five-year series of 16 studies coordinated by environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which involved more than 140 researchers from over 40 institutions and 50 natural gas companies.

The effort brought together scholars based at universities, think tanks and the industry itself to make the most accurate estimate possible of the total amount of methane emitted from all U.S. oil and gas operations. It integrated data from a multitude of recent studies with measurements made on the ground and from the air.

Advertisement

All told, based on the results of the new study, the U.S. oil and gas industry is leaking 13 million metric tons of methane each year, which means the methane leak rate is 2.3 percent. This 60 percent difference between our new estimate and the EPA’s current one can have profound climate consequences.

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the climate warming impact of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is released.

An earlier EDF study showed that a methane leak rate of greater than 3 percent would result in no immediate climate benefits from retiring coal-fired power plants in favor of natural gas power plants.

That means even with a 2.3 percent leakage rate, the growing share of U.S. electricity powered by natural gas is doing something to slow the pace of climate change. However, these climate benefits could be far greater.

Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.

What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.

What causes these leaks

Perhaps you’ve never contemplated the long journey that natural gas travels before you can ignite the burners on the gas stove in your kitchen.

Advertisement

But on top of the 500,000 natural gas wells operating in the U.S. today, there are 2 million miles of pipes and millions of valves, fittings, tanks, compressors and other components operating 24 hours per day, seven days a week to deliver natural gas to your home.

That natural gas that you burn when you whip up a batch of pancakes may have traveled 1,000 miles or more as it wended through this complicated network. Along the way, there were ample opportunities for some of it to leak out into the atmosphere.

Natural gas leaks can be accidental, caused by malfunctioning equipment, but a lot of natural gas is also released intentionally to perform process operations such as opening and closing valves. In addition, the tens of thousands of compressors that increase the pressure and pump the gas along through the network are powered by engines that burn natural gas and their exhaust contains some unburned natural gas.

Since the natural gas delivered to your home is 85 to 95 percent methane, natural gas leaks are predominantly methane. While methane poses the greatest threat to the climate because of its greenhouse gas potency, natural gas contains other hydrocarbons that can degrade regional air quality and are bad for human health.

Inventory tallies vs. aircraft surveillance

The EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory is done in a way experts like us call a “bottom-up” approach. It entails tallying up all of the nation’s natural gas equipment – from household gas meters to wellpads – and estimating an annualized average emission rate for every category and adding it all up.

There are two challenges to this approach. First, there are no accurate equipment records for many of these categories. Second, when components operate improperly or fail, emissions balloon, making it hard to develop an accurate and meaningful annualized emission rate for each source.

“Top-down” approaches, typically requiring aircraft, are the alternative. They measure methane concentrations upwind and downwind of large geographic areas. But this approach has its own shortcomings.

Advertisement

First, it captures all methane emissions, rather than just the emissions tied to natural gas operations – including the methane from landfills, cows and even the leaves rotting in your backyard. Second, these one-time snapshots may get distorted depending on what’s going on while planes fly around capturing methane data.

Historically, top-down approaches estimate emissions that are about twice bottom-up estimates. Some regional top-down methane leak rate estimates have been as high as 8 percent while some bottom-up estimates have been as low as 1 percent.

More recent work, including the Science study, have performed coordinated campaigns in which the on-the-ground and aircraft measurements are made concurrently, while carefully modeling emission events.

Helpful gadgets and sound policy

On a sunny morning in October 2013, our research team pulled up to a natural gas gathering compressor station in Texas. Using an US$80,000 infrared camera, we immediately located an extraordinarily large leak of colorless, odorless methane that was invisible to the operator who quickly isolated and fixed the problem.

We then witnessed the methane emissions decline tenfold – the facility leak rate fell from 9.8 percent to 0.7 percent before our eyes.

It is not economically feasible, of course, to equip all natural gas workers with $80,000 cameras, or to hire the drivers required to monitor every wellpad on a daily basis when there are 40,000 oil and gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, alone.

But new technologies can make a difference. Our team at Colorado State University is working with the Department of Energy to evaluate gadgetry that will rapidly detect methane emissions. Some of these devices can be deployed today, including inexpensive sensors that can be monitored remotely.

Advertisement

Technology alone won’t solve the problem, however. We believe that slashing the nation’s methane leak rate will require a collaborative effort between industry and government. And based on our experience in Colorado, which has developed some of the nation’s strictest methane emissions regulations, we find that best practices become standard practices with strong regulations.

We believe that the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back regulations, without regard to whether they are working or not, will not only have profound climate impacts. They will also jeopardize the health and safety of all Americans while undercutting efforts by the natural gas industry to cut back on the pollution it produces.

Anthony J. Marchese, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering; Director, Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory; Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University and Dan Zimmerle, Senior Research Associate and Director of METEC, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Richard B. (Ricky) Rood, University of Michigan

An Arctic blast hitting the central and eastern U.S. in early January 2025 has been creating fiercely cold conditions in many places. Parts of North Dakota dipped to more than 20 degrees below zero, and people as far south as Texas woke up to temperatures in the teens. A snow and ice storm across the middle of the country added to the winter chill.

Forecasters warned that temperatures could be “10 to more than 30 degrees below normal” across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country during the first full week of the year.

But what does “normal” actually mean?

While temperature forecasts are important to help people stay safe, the comparison to “normal” can be quite misleading. That’s because what qualifies as normal in forecasts has been changing rapidly over the years as the planet warms.

Defining normal

One of the most used standards for defining a science-based “normal” is a 30-year average of temperature and precipitation. Every 10 years, the National Center for Environmental Information updates these “normals,” most recently in 2021. The current span considered “normal” is 1991-2020. Five years ago, it was 1981-2010.

But temperatures have been rising over the past century, and the trend has accelerated since about 1980. This warming is fueled by the mining and burning of fossil fuels that increase carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases trap heat close to the planet’s surface, leading to increasing temperature.

Because global temperatures are warming, what’s considered normal is warming, too.

So, when a 2025 cold snap is reported as the difference between the actual temperature and “normal,” it will appear to be colder and more extreme than if it were compared to an earlier 30-year average.

Advertisement

Thirty years is a significant portion of a human life. For people under age 40 or so, the use of the most recent averaging span might fit with what they have experienced.

But it doesn’t speak to how much the Earth has warmed.

How cold snaps today compare to the past

To see how today’s cold snaps – or today’s warming – compare to a time before global warming began to accelerate, NASA scientists use 1951-1980 as a baseline.

The reason becomes evident when you compare maps.

For example, January 1994 was brutally cold east of the Rocky Mountains. If we compare those 1994 temperatures to today’s “normal” – the 1991-2020 period – the U.S. looks a lot like maps of early January 2025’s temperatures: Large parts of the Midwest and eastern U.S. were more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) below “normal,” and some areas were much colder.

But if we compare January 1994 to the 1951-1980 baseline instead, that cold spot in the eastern U.S. isn’t quite as large or extreme.

Where the temperatures in some parts of the country in January 1994 approached 14.2 F (7.9 C) colder than normal when compared to the 1991-2020 average, they only approached 12.4 F (6.9 C) colder than the 1951-1980 average.

As a measure of a changing climate, updating the average 30-year baseline every decade makes warming appear smaller than it is, and it makes cold snaps seem more extreme.

Conditions for heavy lake-effect snow

The U.S. will continue to see cold air outbreaks in winter, but as the Arctic and the rest of the planet warm, the most frigid temperatures of the past will become less common.

That warming trend helps set up a remarkable situation in the Great Lakes that we’re seeing in January 2025: heavy lake-effect snow across a large area.

Advertisement

As cold Arctic air encroached from the north in January, it encountered a Great Lakes basin where the water temperature was still above 40 F (4.4 C) in many places. Ice covered less than 2% of the lakes’ surface on Jan. 4.

That cold dry air over warmer open water causes evaporation, providing moisture for lake-effect snow. Parts of New York and Ohio along the lakes saw well over a foot of snow in the span of a few days.

The accumulation of heat in the Great Lakes, observed year after year, is leading to fundamental changes in winter weather and the winter economy in the states bordering the lakes.

It’s also a reminder of the persistent and growing presence of global warming, even in the midst of a cold air outbreak.

Richard B. (Ricky) Rood, Professor Emeritus of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Robert A. Kopack, University of South Carolina

If there is a leader in the aerospace industry, SpaceX is it. The company’s Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon spacecrafts are the current go-to vehicles to deliver astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station.

NASA contracts awarded to SpaceX through 2030 alone are worth nearly US$5 billion and include research and development for the Artemis mission to return astronauts to the Moon.

Over the past decade, SpaceX has also emerged as a key vendor to the U.S. Department of Defense, seen most recently with a $733.5 million contract for projects such as launching defense satellite networks and contributing to other national security space objectives.

As a human geographer, I’m interested in how commercial space and defense companies affect the local communities where they conduct launches and tests.

For instance, I spent over two years in Kazakhstan researching the privatization of the Soviet space program and the beginning of a global commercial space industry.

Elon Musk and SpaceX’s influence

Politically, SpaceX is an enormous boon to the United States.

As a U.S.-based defense supplier and contractor, the company’s technology has helped to nearly end an almost two-decade dependency on the Russian Federation for access to the International Space Station. Its billionaire CEO, Elon Musk, has even expressed plans to colonize Mars.

Advertisement

Musk’s decision to spend $250 million helping Donald Trump win the 2024 presidential election is expected to lead to more support for SpaceX.

In the new administration, Musk is poised to lead a newly created advisory agency called the Department of Government Efficiency, which could lead to benefits for his business and widen his space ambitions.

Boca Chica, Texas, is home to SpaceX’s flagship assembly and test installation, Starbase. Since 2021, I have been conducting research with environmental groups and multigenerational community members of Latino and Indigenous descent in south Texas who see space exploration as a landscape-altering industry that affects their well-being.

After watching Starbase’s development proceed since 2014, locals there told me that there is much unseen and unsaid about what happens on the ground while an aerospace giant shoots for the stars.

Breaking eggs to make an omelet

Starbase is an industrial installation built by SpaceX to fabricate and test a number of the company’s rocket types.

The area around it is a unique and delicate ecosystem that includes estuaries and coastal grasslands, mud flats and more, where falcons, hawks, ravens, gulls and songbirds live.

Since construction began, SpaceX engineers have had to drain water-logged soils, level them and pour concrete to support ground tracking stations, assembly buildings, engine test stands, a nearly 500-foot (152-meter) launch tower and onsite fuel mixing and storage.

Advertisement

In a lengthy response to local environmental groups’ claims of environmental abuses, the company maintains that it is dedicated to environmental stewardship.

But developing rockets is a dangerous and messy business. Sites chosen for this kind of work are often, though not always, remote and highly secured installations.

Fiery explosions on the ground or in the air aren’t unheard of over the past several years. Rocket tests in Scotland, China and Japan have all ended in accidents.

In April 2023, one of SpaceX’s prototype Starship rockets exploded over the Gulf of Mexico shortly after liftoff.

This is not the only time that a rocket has exploded at places where SpaceX operates.

SpaceX runs a compact though growing operation at Boca Chica that has transformed the area. The hamlet was previously known as Kopernik Shores, and SpaceX purchased nearly all of the approximately 35 ranch homes in the area. Some residents have reported pressure to sell their property for suboptimal prices following rumors that the county would use eminent domain to seize their residences.

I spoke to Rebekah Hinojosa, a local activist and member of the Carrizo-Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, while researching in the area. To many locals, including Hinojosa, it seems like Musk is so well connected that SpaceX is insulated from public criticism.

Advertisement

In a 2018 press conference, Musk said, “We’ve got a lot of land with no one around, and so if it blows up, it’s cool,” referring to a rocket he planned to test at Starbase.

Changes to the landscape

An installation the size of Starbase cannot avoid disturbing the wildlife in the four distinct state and federal wildlife protection areas that surround it.

If you walk through the protected areas you may see shrapnel, segments of rocket chassis and other random debris from any number of explosions – that is, if someone else hasn’t picked them up first.

In December 2022, I visited a luxury campground near Starbase. It displayed various fragments of rocket debris, which they called memorabilia to the new space age, throughout the site.

Within SpaceX, as well as NASA, the explosion of 2023 was celebrated as a crucial step in developing the Starship rocket. The event did produce valuable data on the rocket’s performance – it has done little to tarnish the company’s reputation.

There is tremendous support for SpaceX in Texas. The company has promised to drive high-tech industry jobs into a region ranked among the country’s poorest.

SpaceX has created about 2,100 jobs. However, reporting shows that local and state politicians have seen more personal gains in their real estate holdings and campaign budgets than the region’s economy has overall.

Advertisement

A laboratory near the community

At the end of the day, to develop a rocket, you need a place to test your design.

“Our local beach is the laboratory,” local activist Hinojosa told me.

Resident coalitions of Indigenous, Latino and Chicano people as well as conservation groups are suing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Federal Aviation Administration and others to combat SpaceX.

These groups argue that SpaceX misled state and federal regulators about Starbase’s operations. They claim SpaceX changed how frequently it planned to launch tests and built new facilities for several rocket types, which rendered the company’s original environmental impact statement for the area inaccurate.

Some key issues these groups are fighting against include a bid to expand Starbase into more protected areas. Another point of contention is the deluge system, which creates thousands of gallons of toxic wastewater to cool launch pads and rocket engines after testing.

While the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have notified SpaceX about violations of the Clean Water Act, claimants in a recent lawsuit contend that these agencies have not held the company accountable for breaking the law. The company has denied any wrongdoing and refutes claims of environmental harms.

“As we have built up capacity to launch and developed new sites across the country, we have always been committed to public safety and mitigating impacts to the environment,” a SpaceX statement reads. “The list of measures we take just for operations in Texas is over two hundred items long, including constant monitoring and sampling of the short and long-term health of local flora and fauna. The narrative that we operate free of, or in defiance of, environmental regulation is demonstrably false.”

So, what does the future hold? Many people from conservation agencies, activist groups and Indigenous communities in Texas want the company out. Given the high public support for space exploration in the U.S. and the burgeoning friendship between Musk and Trump, a SpaceX evacuation from the area seems unlikely.

Advertisement

While it may take difficult negotiations that require concessions from each party, I hope that somewhere there is a middle ground on which space exploration and environmental protections can coexist.

This article was updated on Jan. 17, 2024 to reflect the amount of money Musk spent helping Trump win the 2024 election as $250 million and the correct speed of light.

Robert A. Kopack, Faculty Instructor of Human Geographies, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/