5 ms·

What is climate friendly about natural gas?

by kpmcc 1y ago

m101 1y ago
Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2). I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.
- vintagedave 1y ago
  > Every form of energy generation releases CO2 …except nuclear, hydro, solar… They are stable once built. “Natural gas” is a fossil fuel and adds CO2 that was locked away.
  - m101 1y ago
    So manufacturing hydro and solar releases no CO2? How long until those panels need to be replaced and recycled?
tedk-42 1y ago
Much better to have CO2 than methane in the atmosphere
- thrance 1y ago
  Even better to have neither.
  - onion2k 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
    - vintagedave 1y ago
      Thus nuclear and solar. Not perfect. Considerably better.
      - dgellow 1y ago
        Both nuclear and solar have conditions where they cannot generate energy. Nuclear is also slow to scale up/down. There is a need for something that has the properties of natural gas
- dudeinjapan 1y ago
  I tried telling that to my brother but he won't quit releasing methane.
T-A 1y ago
A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot. [1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fuels.htm https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...
- LunaSea 1y ago
  So not climate friendly.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aachen 1y ago
    With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from Different shades of grey. We'll always cause pollution as part of being. I don't believe that the person above meant it as a final solution to keep burning fossil fuels
    - SXX 1y ago
      > With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from Well, that's mostly solved problem by EU and even SEA: https://www.populationpyramid.net/europe/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/europe/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/south-eastern-asia/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/south-eastern-asia/2024/
  - lm28469 1y ago
    At that point human life isn't climate friendly... everyone wants to live like the average american with 2 cars and 4 ac units per households, when Asia and Africa come for their fair share, even if they only claim 25% of it, we're fucked, no amount of battery or solar panel will make this consumeristic and "growth forever" mentality sustainable, because by definition it is a boundless quest. Half of the world still live like medieval peasants with less than $7 a day, this is just the beginning
jeroenhd 1y ago
It's cleaner than coal and oil. If you upgrade a coal plant to a gas plant, that's a step forward against climate change. Yes, we'd be much better off with wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear reactors, but a step forward is a step forward. Countries like Poland, running mostly on coal, would get cleaner air and contribute less to global warming if they were to upgrade their power plants to anything non-coal. Replace them with nuclear generators and they'd also significantly reduce the amount of radiation people would be exposed to. It's not that gas is that good, it's more that coal is that bad.
- zekrioca 1y ago
  Clever use of the adjective “cleaner”. Try replacing it with “less dirty, but still pollutant and toxic” to see an alternative, correct version of what you have written.
  - good_vs_great 1y ago
    You can put absolutist restrictions on things like that but every time you enter a cost-benefit calculus with such restrictions already in place you're going to end up with more cost and less benefit
  - Asraelite 1y ago
    I don't understand, "cleaner" and "less dirty" are perfectly synonymous to me. Are they not to you?

What is climate friendly about natural gas?

by kpmcc 1y ago

What is climate friendly about natural gas?

m101 1y ago

Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2). I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.

vintagedave 1y ago
> Every form of energy generation releases CO2 …except nuclear, hydro, solar… They are stable once built. “Natural gas” is a fossil fuel and adds CO2 that was locked away.
- m101 1y ago
  So manufacturing hydro and solar releases no CO2? How long until those panels need to be replaced and recycled?

tedk-42 1y ago

Much better to have CO2 than methane in the atmosphere

thrance 1y ago
Even better to have neither.
- onion2k 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
  - vintagedave 1y ago
    Thus nuclear and solar. Not perfect. Considerably better.
    - dgellow 1y ago
      Both nuclear and solar have conditions where they cannot generate energy. Nuclear is also slow to scale up/down. There is a need for something that has the properties of natural gas
dudeinjapan 1y ago
I tried telling that to my brother but he won't quit releasing methane.

T-A 1y ago

A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot. [1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fuels.htm https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...

LunaSea 1y ago
So not climate friendly.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Aachen 1y ago
  With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from Different shades of grey. We'll always cause pollution as part of being. I don't believe that the person above meant it as a final solution to keep burning fossil fuels
  - SXX 1y ago
    > With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from Well, that's mostly solved problem by EU and even SEA: https://www.populationpyramid.net/europe/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/europe/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/south-eastern-asia/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/south-eastern-asia/2024/
- lm28469 1y ago
  At that point human life isn't climate friendly... everyone wants to live like the average american with 2 cars and 4 ac units per households, when Asia and Africa come for their fair share, even if they only claim 25% of it, we're fucked, no amount of battery or solar panel will make this consumeristic and "growth forever" mentality sustainable, because by definition it is a boundless quest. Half of the world still live like medieval peasants with less than $7 a day, this is just the beginning

jeroenhd 1y ago

It's cleaner than coal and oil. If you upgrade a coal plant to a gas plant, that's a step forward against climate change. Yes, we'd be much better off with wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear reactors, but a step forward is a step forward. Countries like Poland, running mostly on coal, would get cleaner air and contribute less to global warming if they were to upgrade their power plants to anything non-coal. Replace them with nuclear generators and they'd also significantly reduce the amount of radiation people would be exposed to. It's not that gas is that good, it's more that coal is that bad.

zekrioca 1y ago
Clever use of the adjective “cleaner”. Try replacing it with “less dirty, but still pollutant and toxic” to see an alternative, correct version of what you have written.
- good_vs_great 1y ago
  You can put absolutist restrictions on things like that but every time you enter a cost-benefit calculus with such restrictions already in place you're going to end up with more cost and less benefit
- Asraelite 1y ago
  I don't understand, "cleaner" and "less dirty" are perfectly synonymous to me. Are they not to you?