Seems good. Until you realize they just shifted to ‘Natural Gas’. Aka liquid methane, which in the short term traps heat 80 times worse than CO2 for about 20 years.
Those wasn’t a move to help the environment, just to make to oil barons richer.
To be fair, that’s only if it escapes. If you burn it, the reaction is CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O. Not saying it’s great and that some doesn’t escape but it’s definitely better than coal lol
Is it actually better than coal though? It takes very little methane leakage to be as damaging as coal. Methane is shitty and we really shouldn’t celebrate any of its use.
Maybe not if you just look at the climate change aspect but burning coal also has a significant effect on air quality due to all the random shit in it. That said I certainly wouldn’t celebrate switching to methane it’s still basically like the third worst option.
I mean, if I make the following point on his behalf, he might have a leg to stand on: by increasing methane dependence we increase the likelihood of a leak. However, it’s pretty clear he’s got an uniformed opinion or is just shooting from the hip.
I don’t like switching to NG; they should have just bit the bullet and gone solar, wind, hydro, nuclear or some combination thereof. The decision to go to NG was likely both financially (cost of shuttering coal projects rather than converting) and economically (got to appease our oil and gas overlords somehow) motivated. Just look at the fucking renewables moratorium…
Also lmao at Notely accomplishing an objective years after the fact, while Kenney and Smith were too busy flipping pancakes at the stampede.
Natural gas is not a liquid, it’s a gas. When burned it releases half the carbon that coal does and has far less other pollutants (impurities) that coal has. When it leaks yes it does have a bad chain reaction. (And in case anyone enjoy otherwise, yes I think we should have solar, wind and yes nuclear.)
This is true. Albeit, a little misleading as the vast majority of that gas will be converted to CO2 rather than released as methane, but this province wont ever do anything to help the environment as the only goal.
I’m happy to take the wins where I can. This is not the best choice, but it’s still a positive change.
Seems good. Until you realize they just shifted to ‘Natural Gas’. Aka liquid methane, which in the short term traps heat 80 times worse than CO2 for about 20 years.
Those wasn’t a move to help the environment, just to make to oil barons richer.
To be fair, that’s only if it escapes. If you burn it, the reaction is CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O. Not saying it’s great and that some doesn’t escape but it’s definitely better than coal lol
Well pointed out. Too bad the emissions are higher than anyone connected with the industry is willing to admit.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/12/11/Alberta-Methane-Super-Emitter/#
https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-from-the-energy-sector-are-70-higher-than-official-figures
Is it actually better than coal though? It takes very little methane leakage to be as damaging as coal. Methane is shitty and we really shouldn’t celebrate any of its use.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187648553/natural-gas-can-rival-coals-climate-warming-potential-when-leaks-are-counted
Maybe not if you just look at the climate change aspect but burning coal also has a significant effect on air quality due to all the random shit in it. That said I certainly wouldn’t celebrate switching to methane it’s still basically like the third worst option.
Coal is so much worse than just the greenhouse gases. I’d much rather deal with methane leaks than clouds of cancer-causing particulates
from a heavy metals perspective and from a particulate perspective, yes, it’s much better than coal.
Exactly this.
I mean, if I make the following point on his behalf, he might have a leg to stand on: by increasing methane dependence we increase the likelihood of a leak. However, it’s pretty clear he’s got an uniformed opinion or is just shooting from the hip.
I don’t like switching to NG; they should have just bit the bullet and gone solar, wind, hydro, nuclear or some combination thereof. The decision to go to NG was likely both financially (cost of shuttering coal projects rather than converting) and economically (got to appease our oil and gas overlords somehow) motivated. Just look at the fucking renewables moratorium…
Also lmao at Notely accomplishing an objective years after the fact, while Kenney and Smith were too busy flipping pancakes at the stampede.
Don’t forget about geothermal. Could be a good option in places where you have a workforce with skills at drilling deep underground.
Natural gas is not a liquid, it’s a gas. When burned it releases half the carbon that coal does and has far less other pollutants (impurities) that coal has. When it leaks yes it does have a bad chain reaction. (And in case anyone enjoy otherwise, yes I think we should have solar, wind and yes nuclear.)
They pipe it in liquid form, LNG.
And more leaks than they report.
https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-from-the-energy-sector-are-70-higher-than-official-figures
In a pipeline it’s in gas form, if shipped (on a big ship) it’s in LNG form. LNG needs very low temps that you aren’t going to get with pipelines.
I guess I misinterpreted when they talk about LNG pipelines.
That isn’t much comfort though, since gas leaks are both more likely and more difficult to contain.
Probably NG pipeline going to a LNG terminal (plant).
This is true. Albeit, a little misleading as the vast majority of that gas will be converted to CO2 rather than released as methane, but this province wont ever do anything to help the environment as the only goal.
I’m happy to take the wins where I can. This is not the best choice, but it’s still a positive change.