There was some wrong about metane in that article
Like most issues this one is not as clear as it may seem. Oil does not burn as completely as natural gas in an internal combustion engine. This is due to the fact that oil, a liquid, does not mix well with air whereas natrual gas, being a gas, does.
The alleged cause of methane emissions is via leaks --- not from the combustion process that is quite efficient if gas is inducted into the engine properly.
The original study by Robert Howarth was retracted because of an error acknowledged by the author:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/25058/
This is from Howart:
Howarth's analysis, however, is just a preliminary one. He's already found one major error in his original calculations. "I blew it," he says, by not including the impact of methane leaks from coal mining. (Here's a link to his original, which contains the error; and here's the updated version). But he still says the gap between coal and natural gas is far smaller than generally thought. And his numbers are significantly different than those researchers at MIT came up with a year ago. (On a CO2 equivalent grams per megajoule basis, they scored diesel at 10.7 and gasoline at 14.4, with natural gas splitting the difference at 12.5). The two studies make different assumptions about the strength of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the amount of methane leakage, for example. A complete analysis should also look at the different efficiencies of natural gas and gasoline or diesel vehicles. The MIT study concludes that there is a benefit from switching to natural gas, all told, but it might not be worth the cost or the hassle. Making more efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles might work better, and be a faster way to reduce greenhouse emissions, it suggests.
But for all the shortcomings of Howarth's analysis, it points to a real need. Before Congress passes any bill promoting natural gas, a thorough study of the potential impact needs to be taken into account, including the energy it takes to obtain it, and the impact of methane leaks.
Otherwise the U.S. might end up subsidizing something that does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions--as happened with corn ethanol.
--I'll like to post this coment also:
"A study like this also needs to take into account the fact that using methane as fuel prevents it from being emitted into the atmosphere by natural processes. How much is emitted from geological sources I don't know, but biomass, which can be converted into fuel, will release a lot of methane as it decomposes".
I would like to ad that it will also use oxygene and release CO2 I think.
I think this issue could maybe be big, the thing about methane from natural processes. If you think about methane captured in the ice in the northern part of Russia. If the ice melts(global warming:) this will go into the air. Logic that it's better to make energy from it.
Just now russia has alot more heat in the air than normal. I think it's because of the "La Ninia" weather phenomenon.
Anyway, germany will stop using nuclear energy. This is very big, billion of euros, so switching to NG on ships will be done, I think. E.ON wants alot of money, to turn off the nukes, maybe if they can get a deal with the ships:)
