[silverquiet]

Methane burned for electricity is better than coal no doubt. But methane that escapes into the atmosphere is way worse than CO2 in the nearish term. And not every extraction company is super thrilled about proper containment.

[gpm]

Released methane is 27-30 times worse than released CO2 per unit mass measured over the next 100 years of warming [1]. Burning methane releases 1 CO2 molecule per CH4 molecule (CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O), or 2.743 it's mass in CO2 [2].

To make up the difference in CO2 you'd have to be losing ~5% of the methane to the atmosphere along the way from extraction to burning.

Do you have reason to believe anywhere near that much is lost?

"Worse than coal" has set a very low bar for how not-bad methane needs to be.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...

[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=molecular+weight+of+CO2...

[_aavaa_]

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c06458

That study puts it at 9.4% of gross production. Many other sources exist which put 5% at a very realistic number. Fossil gas is dirt cheap, invisible, and leaks are large self-reported, so the companies have 0 reasons to properly test for or stop leaks.

[mminer237]

A very small percent is not contained though, and even most vented is flared.

[silverquiet]

I am under the impression that methane levels in the atmosphere have spiked significantly in the last decade or two, and the origin is not really understood. Extraction could be one source, but if it's from another source, that could be more bad news as it would mean that some tipping point has possibly been triggered. I'm far from an expert on this though.

[_aavaa_]

Most of the consciously vented is flared. However, the infrastructure leaks like mad and there have been no incentives incentive for the companies to fix it, it's a cheap invisible gas after all with almost all reporting being self reporting.