By Brett Wilkins
September 12, 2024
Sigh.
OK, this is basically bad metrics.
Yes, by tonnage NG produces a lot of co2, but they’re measuring gas emissions from both, while coal has non-gas emissions they don’t count.
They’re basically comparing the worst case NG emissions with the beyond best case coal emissions assuming we forced them to use maximum particulate reclamation and carbon capture and sequestration.
Which is great, but we have no large-scale working examples of that in this country, and this is the kind of BS they spout to get people to let them build more plants with minimum protections then act shocked when we say anything.
NG produces co2, but that’s about it, it’s the cleanest fossil fuel we have, if they have a problem with that they should push for renewable or nuclear.
BTW, for future lessons, this is modern lobbying now: claim numbers from a solution you have 0 intention of implementing just so they’ll let you get started, then do whatever you want once their back is turned.
The moment it’s off the ground they parade kids crying about not understanding why their daddies are losing their jobs, making everybody else the monster.
Thanks. “Clean Coal” is the biggest con since ethanol. “NG is a transition fuel” is also a con but not on the same level.
I’m fine with NG as methadone, the turbines are cheap and do good peaking and load following for solar.
Clean coal is about as practical as communism and Santa Claus. It’s theoretically possible, in the same way that Craigslist hookups are possible, and never just scammers catfishing from Asia.
We need a long term plan, but we’ve needed one for decades now.
It seems to also factor in leaks of NG, which is much more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Last I heard LNG was cleaner than coal… because that’s what the industry wanted me to believe.
Reuters, 2020: Cleaner but not clean - Why scientists say natural gas won’t avert climate disaster
In January 2020, the American Petroleum Institute (API), a powerful lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, launched its “Energy for Progress” advertising campaign.
Might be the usual confusion about local emissions and particles or something.
LNG is terrible, and instead of letting coal die a gradual death with some degree of economic stability everyone got to go for a rollercoaster ride cultivating “bridge fuels”
Should we take LNG jobs to support coal jobs? Oh, wait, nevermind, if coal went full production overnight they’d only add about 10,000 jobs to the USA because of how heavily automation has been developed for coal mines.
One of the things LNG has over coal is that it’s very easy to turn off and on in case cheaper sources aren’t producing enough. LNG plays much better with renewables and coal also produces ton of pollution and particulate matter. It’s the lesser of two evils when there are no methane leaks.
Methane leaks will still punch the climate in the gut so any leaks are unacceptable and all methane gas needs to be accounted for.
Both obviously need to be replaced with renewables and large cost efficient energy storage. Hydrogen is attractive since energy doesn’t degrade over time, pumped hydro for weekly to monthly high quantity and power, flywheels/lithium batteries to stabilise the grid frequency, heat storage with district heating for households and redux flow batteries with massive containers for winter/summer differences.
Why not just knock down Phoenix AZ, cover it with solar panels, and move on to a better society?
Because you wouldn’t need all of Phoenix? Also there’s plenty of unoccupied deserts in the area.
Solar panels don’t work at night
Keep in mind coal burning produces radioactive fly ash. In terms of public health impact that’s much worse.
How does the environmental impact of LNG compare to CNG?
