All fossil fuels are the real enemy, 7% down on any of them is a good thing regardless of how they compare to each other. But also with a claim calling gas relatively green you should add a source or link to some studies because that doesn’t sound accurate
But basically it burns much, much cleaner than coal, and is easy to fire up, so works great whilst transitioning the baseload to nuclear and renewable power.
The difference is to turn a large coal generator off, then back on again generally takes about a week. Which makes them completely useless for providing overnight power when solar isn’t available.
Coal can only really be paired with something like hydro where you know well in advance that the hydro power plant is going to run out of water.
These days coal power plants often actually pay for the grid to take power from them. They are fine with making a loss during the day if it means they can make a profit at night when nobody has solar. This significantly impacts the financial viability of solar power and is the main reason there aren’t very many large scale solar plants in the world.
Because of coal - you can only make significant profits selling power to the grid at night. And nearly all solar power is primarily intended to be consumed by whoever owns the solar panels.
I am not an expert, but I try to be pragmatic. Here’s what socalgas.com says about the topic.
You’re right that natural gas is methane and that leaks are bad. However I think a nuanced view is important here for a few reasons.
Many developed countries have the infrastructure and workforce in place to not just safely deliver methane to buildings as an energy source but also to correct leaks.
Methane can be produced via a variety of sources both at a large and small scale. I’ve toyed with the idea of making a black soldier fly larvae farm and methane would be a by product
Gas tanks to hold methane have maximum a lifespan of 10 years. However many other methods of storing potential energy have a much shorter maximum lifespan, making methane a decent backup energy source in cases of emergency.
I don’t know how good the energy conversion rate of burning methane is but I would be surprised if it is low.
Personally I think we should leverage every option, especially the lower hanging fruit before dismissing these options as being not ideal when the alternative is continuing to do worse.
It’s not about methane stored in gas tanks - the problem is methane trapped underground which we intentionally release in order to store it. The way we release it is far from a controlled process and it’s impossible to capture all of the released methane. In any developed country they are required to monitor (and minimise) methane releases however there are widespread allegations of under-reporting and failures to capture as much as they could.
If you ask the gas mining companies, they claim it’s a minor issue but if you actually measure methane in the atmosphere, which we are doing (it’s easy to do), then it’s pretty clear this is a massive problem. There’s far too much methane in our atmosphere for all of it to be coming from other sources.
When you burn gas, it becomes CO2 and is released into the air. When methane is released without being burned, it’s so much worse than CO2 that even with very low rates of methane release it still has a bigger impact on the climate than all of the burned gas in the world.
Exactly how much methane is released by mining is unclear but what we do know for sure is how much methane is in the atmosphere right now, and we know that it accounts for about a third of the climate change we are experiencing.
Having said that - gas is still better than coal. There are several reasons but one of them is coal mining also releases methane.
But the methane gets burned to CO2. Sure leaks are worse as a greenhouse gas, but then you’d need to count air pollution, radiation, water pollution, etc. from coal mining and burning too.
Just one pound of methane released into the air is as harmful as if you were to burn 85 pounds of it.
Human emissions are responsible for an estimated 300 billion pounds of methane in our atmosphere right now and we’re adding huge amounts every day.
It’s really, really, bad. Yes, so is coal… but realistically coal can be cleaner than gas. The only real thing Gas has going for it is the ability to run intermittently and increasingly less often as we bring other energy sources online. Of course, that’s a massive benefit.
Coal is the real enemy, gas is already relatively “green” (albeit still non-renewable).
All fossil fuels are the real enemy, 7% down on any of them is a good thing regardless of how they compare to each other. But also with a claim calling gas relatively green you should add a source or link to some studies because that doesn’t sound accurate
I’d recommend reading the EU’s reasoning for allowing both natural gas and nuclear energy projects to receive “green” funding - https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990
But basically it burns much, much cleaner than coal, and is easy to fire up, so works great whilst transitioning the baseload to nuclear and renewable power.
Oh score, nobody ever actually follows up thank you. Article touches on arguments both for and against the inclusion of fossil gas. Good read
I highly recommend reading Sustainable Energy without the hot air by the late David Mackay.
The issues are difficult, and it’s often about choosing the least bad option.
The difference is to turn a large coal generator off, then back on again generally takes about a week. Which makes them completely useless for providing overnight power when solar isn’t available.
Coal can only really be paired with something like hydro where you know well in advance that the hydro power plant is going to run out of water.
These days coal power plants often actually pay for the grid to take power from them. They are fine with making a loss during the day if it means they can make a profit at night when nobody has solar. This significantly impacts the financial viability of solar power and is the main reason there aren’t very many large scale solar plants in the world.
Because of coal - you can only make significant profits selling power to the grid at night. And nearly all solar power is primarily intended to be consumed by whoever owns the solar panels.
Well it’s good that EU coal consumption is falling too
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265504/coal-consumption-in-europe-and-eurasia-in-oil-equivalent/
This is false. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term, and “natural gas” is just methane. When it leaks, it’s very bad, and could be worse than coal. https://newrepublic.com/article/176605/natural-gas-way-worse-coal
I am not an expert, but I try to be pragmatic. Here’s what socalgas.com says about the topic.
You’re right that natural gas is methane and that leaks are bad. However I think a nuanced view is important here for a few reasons.
Many developed countries have the infrastructure and workforce in place to not just safely deliver methane to buildings as an energy source but also to correct leaks.
Methane can be produced via a variety of sources both at a large and small scale. I’ve toyed with the idea of making a black soldier fly larvae farm and methane would be a by product
Gas tanks to hold methane have maximum a lifespan of 10 years. However many other methods of storing potential energy have a much shorter maximum lifespan, making methane a decent backup energy source in cases of emergency.
I don’t know how good the energy conversion rate of burning methane is but I would be surprised if it is low.
Personally I think we should leverage every option, especially the lower hanging fruit before dismissing these options as being not ideal when the alternative is continuing to do worse.
It’s not about methane stored in gas tanks - the problem is methane trapped underground which we intentionally release in order to store it. The way we release it is far from a controlled process and it’s impossible to capture all of the released methane. In any developed country they are required to monitor (and minimise) methane releases however there are widespread allegations of under-reporting and failures to capture as much as they could.
If you ask the gas mining companies, they claim it’s a minor issue but if you actually measure methane in the atmosphere, which we are doing (it’s easy to do), then it’s pretty clear this is a massive problem. There’s far too much methane in our atmosphere for all of it to be coming from other sources.
When you burn gas, it becomes CO2 and is released into the air. When methane is released without being burned, it’s so much worse than CO2 that even with very low rates of methane release it still has a bigger impact on the climate than all of the burned gas in the world.
Exactly how much methane is released by mining is unclear but what we do know for sure is how much methane is in the atmosphere right now, and we know that it accounts for about a third of the climate change we are experiencing.
Having said that - gas is still better than coal. There are several reasons but one of them is coal mining also releases methane.
Thank you, these are all great points.
But the methane gets burned to CO2. Sure leaks are worse as a greenhouse gas, but then you’d need to count air pollution, radiation, water pollution, etc. from coal mining and burning too.
Just one pound of methane released into the air is as harmful as if you were to burn 85 pounds of it.
Human emissions are responsible for an estimated 300 billion pounds of methane in our atmosphere right now and we’re adding huge amounts every day.
It’s really, really, bad. Yes, so is coal… but realistically coal can be cleaner than gas. The only real thing Gas has going for it is the ability to run intermittently and increasingly less often as we bring other energy sources online. Of course, that’s a massive benefit.